When there is a request for review related to a disclosure or non-disclosure decision or an inaction related to a disclosure request, the head of the administrative organ who should make an administrative determination on the request for review must consult with the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board (when the head of the administrative organ who should make an administrative determination on the request for review is the President of the Board of Audit, a review board specified separately by laws), unless the case falls under either of the following cases:
if the request for review is not in accordance with the law and is to be dismissed; or
審査請求が不適法であり、却下する場合
if the entire request for review has been approved by an administrative determination, and it is decided that all of the administrative documents related to the request for review is to be disclosed (excluding the cases in which a written opposition opinion on the disclosure of the administrative documents has been submitted).
The head of an administrative organ who has made a consultation pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph must notify the following persons of the fact that a consultation has been made.
the requestor for review and intervenor (meaning the intervenor prescribed in Article 13, paragraph (4) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act; the same applies below in this paragraph and paragraph (1), item (ii) of the following Article);
審査請求人及び参加人（行政不服審査法第十三条第四項に規定する参加人をいう。以下この項及び次条第一項第二号において同じ。）
the disclosure requester (except when the person is the requestor for review or an intervenor); and
a third party that has submitted a written opposition opinion on the disclosure of the administrative documents related to the request for review (excluding the cases in which the third party is the requestor for review or an intervenor).
(Consultation with the Review Board)
When there is a request for review related to a disclosure or non-disclosure decision or an inaction related to a disclosure request, the head of the administrative organ who should make an…
開示決定等又は開示請求に係る不作為について審査請求があったときは、当該審査請求に対する裁決をすべき行政機関の長は、次の各号のいずれかに該当する場合を除き、情報公開・個人情報保護審査会（審査請求に対する裁決をすべき行政機関の長が会計検査院の長である場合にあっては、別に法律で定める審査会）に諮問しなければならない。
Open this provision(Consultation with the Review Board)
The head of an administrative organ who has made a consultation pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph must notify the following persons of the fact that a consultation has been made.
前項の規定により諮問をした行政機関の長は、次に掲げる者に対し、諮問をした旨を通知しなければならない。
Open this provision(Procedures When Dismissing Requests for Review from Third Parties)
an administrative determination to change the disclosure or non-disclosure decision related to a request for review…
審査請求に係る開示決定等（開示請求に係る行政文書の全部を開示する旨の決定を除く。）を変更し、当該審査請求に係る行政文書を開示する旨の裁決（第三者である参加人が当該行政文書の開示に反対の意思を表示している場合に限る。）
Open this provision(Intervenors)
Each of the agent referred to in the preceding paragraph may perform all acts concerning participation in the request for review on behalf of the person who participates in the request for review…
前項の代理人は、各自、第一項又は第二項の規定により当該審査請求に参加する者（以下「参加人」という。）のために、当該審査請求への参加に関する一切の行為をすることができる。ただし、審査請求への参加の取下げは、特別の委任を受けた場合に限り、することができる。
Open this provisionadministrative document
「行政文書」
Documents, drawings and electronic or magnetic records (電磁的記録) that employees of an administrative organ (行政機関) have made or obtained in their work and that the organ holds for its employees' organizational use, except publications issued for sale to the general public such as the official gazette (官報), white papers and books; specified historical public records (特定歴史公文書等), the historical records moved to, or donated to or deposited with, the National Archives (国立公文書館) and similar archives under the Public Records and Archives Management Act; and materials under special management as historical, cultural or research materials at research institutes and other facilities a Cabinet Order (政令) names.
Defined inArticle 2, paragraph (2)· applies throughout the law
head of an administrative organmachine translation
「行政機関の長」
The head of an administrative organ (行政機関), to whom anyone may make a request for disclosure of the administrative documents (行政文書) that organ holds; for the organs a Cabinet Order (政令) designates under Article 2, paragraph (1), items (iv) and (v), it is instead the person a Cabinet Order names for each of those organs.
Defined inArticle 3, paragraph (1)
request for disclosure
「開示請求」
A request, which anyone may make under Article 3 by submitting a written request for disclosure (開示請求書) to the head of an administrative organ (行政機関), for disclosure of an administrative document (行政文書) that organ holds.
Short name set inArticle 4, paragraph (1)
disclosure requester
「開示請求者」
A person who has made a request for disclosure (開示請求) of an administrative document (行政文書) under this Act.
Short name set inArticle 4, paragraph (2)
decision on disclosure or non-disclosure
「開示決定等」
A decision by the head of an administrative organ (行政機関) under Article 9 on a request for disclosure (開示請求): to disclose all or part of the requested administrative document (行政文書), or to disclose none of it, including where the request is refused under Article 8 or the organ does not hold the document.
Short name set inArticle 10, paragraph (1)
third party
「第三者」
In Article 13, Article 19(2) and Article 20(1), any person or body other than the national government (国), incorporated administrative agencies, etc. (独立行政法人等), local governments (地方公共団体), local incorporated administrative agencies (地方独立行政法人) and the disclosure requester (開示請求者).
Short name set inArticle 13, paragraph (1)· applies only in this article and in Article 19, paragraph (2); and Article 20, paragraph (1)
written opposition opinion
「反対意見書」
A written opinion (意見書) in which a third party (第三者), given the chance under Article 13(1) or (2) to comment on a request for disclosure (開示請求), states that it opposes disclosure of the administrative document (行政文書).
Short name set inArticle 13, paragraph (3)· applies only in this provision and in Article 19
intervenorcorrected by this site
「参加人」
A person, other than the one who filed a request for review (審査請求) of a decision on disclosure or non-disclosure (開示決定等) or of a failure to act on a request for disclosure (開示請求), who is found, in light of the laws the disposition (処分) rests on, to have an interest in it and who takes part in the review with the permission or at the request of the reviewing agency (審査庁), under Article 13 of the Administrative Complaint Review Act as Article 18(2) of this Act applies it.
Defined inArticle 19, paragraph (2), item (i)· applies only in this paragraph and in Article 20, paragraph (1), item (ii)
Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board
情報公開・個人情報保護審査会
A board set up in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (総務省) to examine a request for review (審査請求) when the body that must decide it consults the board under the Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs, the Act on Access to Information Held by Incorporated Administrative Agencies or the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (Act for Establishment of the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board, Article 2). Its fifteen members are appointed by the Prime Minister (内閣総理大臣), with the consent of both Houses of the Diet (国会), from people of outstanding insight (Articles 3 and 4, paragraph (1)). When it considers it necessary, it can have the body consulting it show it the documents or the personal information themselves, which that body may not refuse, and no one may ask the board to disclose what it is shown (Article 9, paragraphs (1) and (2)). When it has answered a consultation, it sends a copy of its written report (答申書) to the person who requested the review and to anyone who has joined the review as a party (参加人, an intervenor), and makes the content of its report public (Article 16). The head of an administrative organ who must decide a request for review of a decision on disclosure, or of a failure to decide, must consult it first, unless the request is unlawful and is dismissed, or it is granted in full and all the documents are to be disclosed with no third party having submitted a written objection to their disclosure (反対意見書). When the head is the President of the Board of Audit (会計検査院), a board set up by a separate Act is consulted instead (Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs, Article 19, paragraph (1)).
Written by AI using Act for Establishment of the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board, Arts. 2, 3, 4, 9, 16 and Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs, Art. 19 as a reference.
request for review
審査請求
A request to an administrative agency (行政庁) to review a disposition (処分) the person objects to, or, where the person applied for a disposition under a law or regulation and a reasonable time has passed with none made, the agency's failure to act (不作為) (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Articles 2 and 3). Unless an Act, or for a disposition based on a local ordinance (条例) that ordinance, provides otherwise, it is made to the agency that made the disposition or failed to act where that agency has no superior agency or is itself the competent minister (主任の大臣) or the head of certain agencies; where such a minister or head is the agency above it, to that minister or head; and otherwise to its highest superior agency (Article 4). Another Act can set rules of its own for it, naming another body to make it to or another route (Article 1, paragraph (2); Article 4): the Employees' Pension Insurance Act, for instance, has a request about a disposition (処分) of the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare (厚生労働大臣) on a person's status as insured, standard remuneration or insurance benefits, other than a decision on a request to correct the pension insurance register, made to a social insurance examiner (社会保険審査官), and disapplies most of the Administrative Complaint Review Act's rules for it (Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Articles 90, paragraph (1), and 91-2). Under the Administrative Complaint Review Act, a request about a disposition must be made within three months of the day after the person learned of it — or one month after learning of the decision, where a request for re-investigation (再調査の請求) was made first — and within a year of the disposition or that decision, unless there is a justifiable reason (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 18, paragraphs (1) and (2)). Making one does not by itself stop the disposition taking effect or being carried out, or the proceedings going on (Article 25, paragraph (1)), but the agency reviewing it can suspend them in whole or in part on the application of the person who made the request — and, where it made the disposition or is the agency above the one that did, of its own motion — and, once the person who made the request has applied, must where that is urgently needed to avoid serious harm, unless that would seriously affect the public welfare or the request appears to have no grounds (Article 25, paragraphs (2) to (4)). The agency reviewing it (審査庁) decides it by a determination (裁決): it dismisses a request that is unlawful, for instance one made too late, rejects one that is groundless, and, where one is well founded, revokes the disposition in whole or in part or changes it — though never to the disadvantage of the person who made the request, and an agency that neither made the disposition nor is above the agency that did cannot change it (Articles 45, paragraphs (1) and (2), 46, paragraph (1), and 48). Where the request is about a de facto act (事実上の行為), the determination instead declares the act unlawful or unjust and orders it abolished in whole or in part or changed, or abolishes or changes it (Article 47). A well-founded request about a failure to act ends instead in a determination declaring the failure unlawful or unjust, and, where the agency finds a disposition should be made, an order to make it or the disposition itself (Article 49, paragraph (3)). Where revoking an unlawful or unjust disposition, or abolishing an unlawful or unjust de facto act, would seriously harm the public interest, the agency can reject the request while declaring in the determination that it is unlawful or unjust (Article 45, paragraph (3)). The determination takes effect when it is served on the person who made the request — or, where someone other than the disposition's addressee made it and the determination revokes or changes the disposition or deals with a de facto act, once it is served on the addressee too — and binds the agencies concerned (Articles 51, paragraph (1), and 52, paragraph (1)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 1 to 4, 18, 25, 45 to 49, 51, 52 and Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Arts. 90, 91-2 as a reference.