The requester for review may submit a document stating a rebuttal to the matters stated in the written answer sent under Article 93, paragraph (3) (Sending of the Written Answer) (hereinafter referred to as a "written rebuttal" in this Article and Article 97-4, paragraph (2), item (i), (b) (Conclusion of Review Proceedings)). In this case, if the presiding tribunal judge has set a reasonable period within which the written rebuttal is to be submitted, it must be submitted within that period.
審査請求人は、第九十三条第三項（答弁書の送付）の規定により送付された答弁書に記載された事項に対する反論を記載した書面（以下この条及び第九十七条の四第二項第一号ロ（審理手続の終結）において「反論書」という。）を提出することができる。この場合において、担当審判官が、反論書を提出すべき相当の期間を定めたときは、その期間内にこれを提出しなければならない。
An intervenor may submit a document stating an opinion on the case concerning the request for review (hereinafter referred to as an "intervenor's written opinion" in this Article and Article 97-4, paragraph (2), item (i), (c)). In this case, if the presiding tribunal judge has set a reasonable period within which the intervenor's written opinion is to be submitted, it must be submitted within that period.
参加人は、審査請求に係る事件に関する意見を記載した書面（以下この条及び第九十七条の四第二項第一号ハにおいて「参加人意見書」という。）を提出することができる。この場合において、担当審判官が、参加人意見書を提出すべき相当の期間を定めたときは、その期間内にこれを提出しなければならない。
The presiding tribunal judge must send a written rebuttal submitted by the requester for review to the intervenors and the agency that made the original disposition, and an intervenor's written opinion submitted by an intervenor to the requester for review and the agency that made the original disposition, respectively.
Read this with the articles around it
intervenormachine translation
「参加人」
A person other than the appellant who has an interest in the disposition under appeal and takes part in the appeal (不服申立て) under Article 109, either with the permission of the reviewing authority or at its request.
Defined inArticle 84, paragraph (1)· applies only in this subsection and in Chapter 8, Section 1, Subsection 3
agency that made the original dispositionmachine translation
「原処分庁」
The head of the administrative agency that made the disposition challenged in a request for review (審査請求) to the National Tax Tribunal — or, for a disposition treated as the regional commissioner's because a Regional Taxation Bureau's officials investigated it, that regional commissioner — whom the Tribunal's President has submit a written answer.
Short name set inArticle 93, paragraph (1)
written rebuttalmachine translation
「反論書」
A document in which a requester for review (審査請求人) sets out a rebuttal of what is stated in the written answer (答弁書) from the authority that made the original disposition (原処分庁), sent to them under Article 93, paragraph (3).
Short name set inArticle 95, paragraph (1)· applies only in this article and in Article 97-4, paragraph (2), item (i), (b)
intervenor's written opinionmachine translation
「参加人意見書」
In Article 95 and Article 97-4, paragraph (2), item (i)(c), a written statement of opinion on a request for review (審査請求) that an intervenor (参加人) in it may submit, within any period the presiding tribunal examiner (担当審判官) sets.
Short name set inArticle 95, paragraph (2)· applies only in this article and in Article 97-4, paragraph (2), item (i), (c)
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.