①The provisions of Article 9, Article 17, Article 24, Chapter II, Section 3 and Section 4, and Article 50, paragraph (2) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act (Act No. 68 of 2014) do not apply to a request for review of a disclosure or non-disclosure decision or an inaction related to a disclosure request.

②In applying the provisions of Chapter II of the Administrative Complaint Review Act to a request for review of a disclosure or non-disclosure decision or an inaction related to a disclosure request, the phrase "a person who has been designated pursuant to the provisions of Article 9, paragraph (1) (referred to as a "review officer" below)" in Article 11, paragraph (2) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "an administrative authority to which a request for review has been filed (including an administrative authority that has taken over documents and articles pursuant to the provisions of Article 14; referred to as "reviewing agency" below) pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 (including the Cabinet Order based on Article 20, paragraph (2) of the Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs (Act No. 42 of 1999)); the term "review officer" in Article 13, paragraphs (1) and (2) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "reviewing agency"; the term "has been filed or a written opinion stating that a stay of execution prescribed in Article 40 should be issued has been submitted by a review officer" in Article 25, paragraph (7) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "has been filed"; the terms "Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc." and "has received a report to its consultation from the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc. (or when a review officer's written opinion has been submitted in the case where the consultation pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article is not necessary (excluding the cases falling under item (ii) or (iii) of the relevant paragraph), or when deliberations prescribed in item (ii) or (iii) of the relevant paragraph have been held in the cases falling under item (ii) or (iii) of the relevant paragraph) in Article 44 of that Act are deemed to be replaced with "Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board (if the President of the Board of Audit is the reviewing agency, a review board specified separately by laws; the same applies in Article 50, paragraph (1), item (iv))" and "has received a report to its consultation from the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc.", respectively; and the phrase "the review officer's written opinion or the written report from the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc. or the Council, etc." in Article 50, paragraph (1), item (iv) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board".

①When 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:

②The 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.

①The provisions of Article 13, paragraph (3) apply mutatis mutandis to the cases in which the administrative determination falls under any of the following items:

②Concerning a request for review of a disclosure decision, etc. or of any inaction related to a disclosure request, special provisions for the provisions of Article 4 of the Administrative Complaint Review Act may be established pursuant to the provisions of Cabinet Order

①When a litigation demanding revocation of a disclosure or non-disclosure decision, or revocation of an administrative determination on a request for review related to a disclosure or non-disclosure decision or an inaction related to a request for disclosure (referred to as "information disclosure litigation" in the following paragraph and paragraph (2) of the Supplementary Provisions) has been filed to the specified court with jurisdiction prescribed in Article 12, paragraph (4) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act (Act No. 139 of 1962), notwithstanding the provisions of Article 12, paragraph (5) of that Act, if an action for judicial review (meaning an action for judicial review prescribed in Article 3, paragraph (1) of that Act; the same applies in the following paragraph) on a disclosure or non-disclosure decision or an inaction related to a disclosure or non-disclosure decision or a request for disclosure for the same, or the same type or similar administrative documents is pending at another court, if the specified court with jurisdiction finds it appropriate in consideration of the address or location of the party, the address of witness to be examined, commonality of the issues or evidence, and other circumstances, the court may transfer all or a part of the litigation to that other court or a court prescribed in Article 12, paragraphs (1) through (3) of that Act, in response to a proposal or by its own authority.

②The provisions of the preceding paragraph apply mutatis mutandis to the cases in which an action for judicial review on a disclosure or non-disclosure decision or an administrative determination on a request for review of a disclosure or non-disclosure decision or an inaction related to the disclosure request, other than an information disclosure lawsuit, has been filed to the specified court with jurisdiction prescribed in Article 12, paragraph (4) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act pursuant to the provisions of that paragraph.