Until the review proceedings are concluded under paragraph (1) or (2) of the following Article, a party to the proceedings may request the presiding tribunal judge to allow inspection of the documents or other articles submitted under Article 96, paragraph (1) or (2) (Submission of Documentary Evidence, etc.) or Article 97, paragraph (1), item (ii) (Questioning, Inspection, etc. for Examination) (or, for an electronic or magnetic record, inspection of the matters recorded in it as displayed in the manner specified by Ministry of Finance Order), or to deliver a copy of those documents or a document stating the matters recorded in that electronic or magnetic record. In this case, the presiding tribunal judge may not refuse the inspection or delivery unless the presiding tribunal judge finds that there is a risk of harm to the interests of a third party, or there is another justifiable reason.
When the presiding tribunal judge intends to allow inspection under the preceding paragraph or to make a delivery under that paragraph, the presiding tribunal judge must hear the opinion of the person who submitted the documents or other articles subject to that inspection or delivery; provided, however, that this does not apply if the presiding tribunal judge finds it unnecessary.
The presiding tribunal judge may designate the date and time and the place for inspection under paragraph (1).
担当審判官は、第一項の規定による閲覧について、日時及び場所を指定することができる。
A requester for review or intervenor who receives a delivery under paragraph (1) must, pursuant to the provisions of Cabinet Order, pay a fee in the amount specified by Cabinet Order within the limits of the actual cost.
If the presiding tribunal judge finds that there is economic hardship or another special reason, the presiding tribunal judge may, pursuant to the provisions of Cabinet Order, reduce or waive the fee referred to in the preceding paragraph.
担当審判官は、経済的困難その他特別の理由があると認めるときは、政令で定めるところにより、前項の手数料を減額し、又は免除することができる。
Read this with the articles around it
electronic or magnetic recordmachine translation
「電磁的記録」
A record made in electronic, magnetic or any other form people cannot perceive directly, for use in computer processing.
Defined inArticle 34-6, 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)
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.