If the requester for review or an intervenor so petitions, the presiding tribunal judge must give the person who made the petition an opportunity to state an opinion orally on the case concerning the request for review.
審査請求人又は参加人の申立てがあつた場合には、担当審判官は、当該申立てをした者に口頭で審査請求に係る事件に関する意見を述べる機会を与えなければならない。
In making the statement of opinion under the preceding paragraph (referred to as an "oral statement of opinion" in the following paragraph and Article 97-4, paragraph (2), item (ii) (Conclusion of Review Proceedings)), the person who made the petition referred to in the preceding paragraph may, with the permission of the presiding tribunal judge, ask questions of the agency that made the original disposition concerning the case concerning the request for review.
前項の規定による意見の陳述（次項及び第九十七条の四第二項第二号（審理手続の終結）において「口頭意見陳述」という。）に際し、前項の申立てをした者は、担当審判官の許可を得て、審査請求に係る事件に関し、原処分庁に対して、質問を発することができる。
The provisions of the proviso to Article 84, paragraph (1), and paragraphs (2), (3) and (5) of that Article (Procedures for Determinations, etc.) apply mutatis mutandis to the oral statement of opinion referred to in paragraph (1). In this case, the term "reinvestigation authority" in paragraph (2) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "presiding tribunal judge", the phrase "the requester for reinvestigation and the intervenors" with "all parties to the proceedings", the term "reinvestigation authority" in paragraph (3) of that Article with "presiding tribunal judge", and the phrase "the reinvestigation authority or the official referred to in the preceding paragraph" in paragraph (5) of that Article with "the presiding tribunal judge".
An associate tribunal judge may, under the orders of the presiding tribunal judge, give the permission referred to in paragraph (2) and perform the acts referred to in Article 84, paragraph (5) as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to the preceding paragraph following the deemed replacement of terms.
Read this with the articles around it
reinvestigation authoritymachine translation
「再調査審理庁」
The tax office director or other head of an agency to whom a request for reinvestigation (再調査の請求) has been made, and who examines it.
Short name set inArticle 81, paragraph (3)
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
parties to the proceedingsmachine translation
「審理関係人」
The parties to the examination of a request for review (審査請求): the requester, any intervenor (参加人) and the agency that made the original disposition (原処分庁).
Short name set inArticle 92-2, paragraph (1)
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)
oral statement of opinionmachine translation
「口頭意見陳述」
A statement of opinion on the case made orally, at their request, by a requester for review (審査請求人) or an intervenor (参加人), which the presiding tribunal examiner (担当審判官) must give them the chance to make under Article 95-2, paragraph (1).
Short name set inArticle 95-2, paragraph (2)· applies only in this provision and in Article 95-2, paragraph (3); and Article 97-4, paragraph (2), item (ii)
request for re-investigation
再調査の請求
A request to the administrative agency (行政庁) that made a disposition (処分) to look into it again. A person who objects to the disposition can make one only where a request for review (審査請求) of it can be made to another agency and an Act provides that this request can be made, and not once the person has made a request for review of it (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 5, paragraph (1)). Another Act can set rules of its own for it (Article 1, paragraph (2)): the Act on General Rules for National Taxes, for instance, lets a person who objects to a disposition of a district director (税務署長) as a rule choose between a request for re-investigation to that director and a request for review to the President of the National Tax Tribunal (国税不服審判所長) (Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Article 75, paragraph (1), item (i)). Under the Administrative Complaint Review Act, it must be made within three months of the day after the person learned of the disposition and within a year of the disposition, unless there is a justifiable reason (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 54). A person who has made one cannot make a request for review until the agency has decided it, unless three months pass from the day after it was made — or, where the agency ordered a defect in it corrected, the day after the correction — without a decision, or there is another justifiable reason (Article 5, paragraph (2)); where it is still pending after those three months, the agency must tell the person in writing that they can make a request for review straight away (Article 57). The agency decides it by a decision (決定): 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; where it is about a de facto act (事実上の行為), the decision instead declares the act unlawful or unjust and abolishes it in whole or in part or changes it (Articles 58 and 59). Unless the decision revokes the whole disposition or abolishes the whole of a de facto act, it must tell the person that a request for review can be made — after a dismissal, only where the dismissal was unlawful — to which agency and within what time (Article 60, paragraph (2)); that request for review must be made within one month of the day after the person learned of the decision and within a year of the decision, unless there is a justifiable reason (Article 18, paragraphs (1) and (2)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 1, 5, 18, 54, 57 to 60 and Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Art. 75 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.