Upon the filing of a petition by a person who alleges that the person's rights have been violated due to disseminating information through specified telecommunications means, the court may, by way of a ruling, order the disclosure related service provider pertaining to the violation of the right to disclose sender identification information as demanded pursuant to the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (1) or (2).

①The court has jurisdiction over a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order if any of the items set forth below is applicable.

②Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, parties may establish, by agreement, the country in which they are permitted to file a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order with the courts.

③The agreement as referred to in the preceding paragraph is not valid unless it is executed by means of a written document.

④If electronic or magnetic records (meaning records used in computer data processing which are created in electronic form, magnetic form, or any other form that is impossible to recognize through the human senses alone) in which the content of the agreement is recorded are used to execute the agreement as referred to in paragraph (2), the agreement is deemed to have been executed by means of a written document, and the provisions of the preceding paragraph apply.

⑤The agreement under paragraph (2) that a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order may be filed only with the courts of a foreign country, may not be invoked if those courts are unable to exercise jurisdiction by law or in fact.

⑥Even when the Japanese courts have jurisdiction over a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order pursuant to the provisions of the preceding respective paragraphs (except when a petition is filed based on an agreement under paragraph (2) that only permits a petition to be filed with the Japanese courts), the court may dismiss the whole or part of a petition without prejudice if it finds that there are special circumstances under which the Japanese courts were to conduct a trial and reach a judicial decision in the action, it would be inequitable to either party or prevent a fair and speedy trial, in consideration of the nature of the case, the degree of burden that the opposite party would have to bear in pursuing the proceedings, the location of evidence, and other circumstances.

⑦Whether the Japanese courts have jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the time at which a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is filed.

①A petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is under the jurisdiction of a district court which has jurisdiction over a location specified in the respective items below, depending on the categories listed in the respective items below.

②With regard to a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order as to which the Japanese courts would have jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the preceding Article, if the competent court is not determined pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph or other laws and regulations, then the petition is under the jurisdiction of a district court having jurisdiction over the location prescribed in the Rules of the Supreme Court.

③With regard to a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order, if a court listed in the following items would have jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, the petition may also be filed with the court specified in the relevant item:

④Notwithstanding the preceding three paragraphs, a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is under the jurisdiction of a district court specified by the parties by agreement. In that case, the provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of the preceding Article apply mutatis mutandis.

⑤Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding respective paragraphs, with regard to a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order filed by a person alleging the infringement of the relevant person's patent right, utility model right, layout-design exploitation right for an integrated circuit, or an author's right to a work of computer programming, if a court listed in the following items would have jurisdiction over the petition pursuant to each paragraph, the petition is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court specified in the relevant item:

⑥An immediate appeal to a decision rendered by the court specified in item (ii) of the preceding paragraph in the case of a sender identification information disclosure order (but limited to one relating to infringement of the rights set forth in the paragraph) is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tokyo High Court.

⑦Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, with regard to the case specified in item (i) below relating to a petition by a person to whom, pursuant to the order under Article 15, paragraph (1) (but limited to the portion relating to item (i) of paragraph (1)), information such as names of other related disclosing service providers was provided as the relevant information is specified in (a) of item (i), if the case specified in item (ii) below relating to the petition by the person to whom the information was provided is pending, then the former case is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court at which the latter case is pending.

①When a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is filed with a court, the court must deliver to the opposite party a copy of the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order unless the petition is unlawful or unless the relevant petition is clearly groundless.

②The provisions of Article 43, paragraphs (4) through (6) of the Non-Contentious Case Procedures Act (Act No. 51 of 2011) apply mutatis mutandis to a case where a copy of the petition for a sender identification information disclosure order may not be delivered (including if expenses required for the delivery of a copy of the relevant petition are not prepaid).

③Before rendering a decision on a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order, the court must hear the parties' statements; provided that, this does not apply when the court renders a decision to dismiss the petition, finding that it is unlawful or clearly groundless.

①The parties to a case and any third party that makes a prima facie showing of interest in the case may file a request with the court clerk to inspect or copy the case record, to issue an authenticated copy, transcript, or extract of the case record, or to issue a certificate of the particulars of the case of the sender identification information disclosure order.

②The provisions of the preceding paragraph do not apply with respect to case records of the case of a sender identification information disclosure order that are being prepared in the form of audiotapes or videotapes (including any other matters that have been recorded by means equivalent thereto). Nevertheless, the relevant parties or a third party that makes a prima facie showing of interest may file a request with the court clerk for a reproduction of these matters.

③The request for inspection, copying and reproduction of records of a case of a sender identification information disclosure order pursuant to the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs may not be filed if these actions would be detrimental to the preservation of the case record or the performance of the court duties.