When the presiding tribunal judge finds that the necessary examination has been completed, the presiding tribunal judge is to conclude the review proceedings.
担当審判官は、必要な審理を終えたと認めるときは、審理手続を終結するものとする。
Beyond what is provided for in the preceding paragraph, the presiding tribunal judge may conclude the review proceedings if any of the following items applies:
前項に定めるもののほか、担当審判官は、次の各号のいずれかに該当するときは、審理手続を終結することができる。
if the articles specified respectively in (a) through (e) below are not submitted within the reasonable period under the provisions listed in (a) through (e), and, even though their submission has been requested with a further fixed period indicated, those articles are not submitted within that submission period;
次のイからホまでに掲げる規定の相当の期間内に、当該イからホまでに定める物件が提出されない場合において、更に一定の期間を示して、当該物件の提出を求めたにもかかわらず、当該提出期間内に当該物件が提出されなかつたとき。
the first sentence of Article 93, paragraph (1) (Submission of Written Answer, etc.): written answer;
第九十三条第一項前段（答弁書の提出等） 答弁書
the second sentence of Article 95, paragraph (1) (Submission of Written Rebuttal, etc.): written rebuttal;
the second sentence of Article 95, paragraph (2): intervenor's written opinion;
Article 96, paragraph (3) (Submission of Documentary Evidence, etc.): documentary evidence or articles of evidence, or documents or other articles;
第九十六条第三項（証拠書類等の提出） 証拠書類若しくは証拠物又は書類その他の物件
Article 97, paragraph (1), item (ii) (Questioning, Inspection, etc. for Review): books and documents, or other articles;
第九十七条第一項第二号（審理のための質問、検査等） 帳簿書類その他の物件
if a requester for review or an intervenor who has filed the petition prescribed in Article 95-2, paragraph (1) (Oral Statement of Opinion) fails to appear for the oral statement of opinion without justifiable grounds.
第九十五条の二第一項（口頭意見陳述）に規定する申立てをした審査請求人又は参加人が、正当な理由がなく、口頭意見陳述に出頭しないとき。
When the presiding tribunal judge has concluded the review proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, the presiding tribunal judge is to promptly notify the parties to the proceedings that the review proceedings have been concluded.
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
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)
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)
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 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.