If the presiding tribunal judge finds that, because the case concerning a request for review is complex, such as by involving numerous or intricate matters to be examined, or due to other circumstances, it is necessary to conduct the review proceedings prescribed in Article 95-2 through paragraph (1) of the preceding Article (Oral Statement of Opinion, etc.) in a systematic manner in order to conduct a prompt and fair examination, the presiding tribunal judge may designate a date and place, summon the parties to the proceedings, and hear their opinions in advance on petitions concerning those review proceedings.
If the parties to the proceedings reside in a distant place or in other cases where the presiding tribunal judge finds it appropriate, the presiding tribunal judge may, pursuant to the provisions of Cabinet Order, hear the opinions referred to in the preceding paragraph by a means that enables the presiding tribunal judge and the parties to the proceedings to communicate with one another by sending and receiving voice.
When the presiding tribunal judge has heard opinions under the preceding two paragraphs, the presiding tribunal judge is to determine without delay the dates and places of the review proceedings prescribed in Article 95-2 through paragraph (1) of the preceding Article and the scheduled time for concluding the review proceedings under Article 97-4, paragraph (1) (Conclusion of Review Proceedings), and notify the parties to the proceedings of these. The same applies when the presiding tribunal judge has changed that scheduled time.
担当審判官は、前二項の規定による意見の聴取を行つたときは、遅滞なく、第九十五条の二から前条第一項までに定める審理手続の期日及び場所並びに第九十七条の四第一項（審理手続の終結）の規定による審理手続の終結の予定時期を決定し、これらを審理関係人に通知するものとする。当該予定時期を変更したときも、同様とする。
Read this with the articles around it
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.