When a review officer finds that necessary proceedings have been completed, the review officer is to conclude the procedures for proceedings.
審理員は、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, a review officer may conclude the procedures for proceedings in any of the following cases:
when any of the objects prescribed in the following sub-items (a) through (e) has not been submitted within the reasonable period of time referred to in the provisions stated in the sub-items (a) through (e), and even after further specifying a reasonable period of time and requesting the submission of those objects, the objects have not been submitted within the 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ったとき。
the provisions of Article 29, paragraph (2):a written explanation;
第二十九条第二項 弁明書
the provisions of the second sentence of Article 30, paragraph (1):a written counterargument;
the provisions of the second sentence of Article 30, paragraph (2):a written opinion;
the provisions of Article 32, paragraph (3):evidence documents or articles of evidence, or documents or other objects; or
第三十二条第三項 証拠書類若しくは証拠物又は書類その他の物件
the provisions of the first sentence of Article 33:documents or other objects;
第三十三条前段 書類その他の物件
when a petitioner does not appear for an oral opinion statement without legitimate grounds.
When a review officer has concluded procedures for proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, the review officer is to promptly notify the persons concerned with proceedings the fact that the procedures for proceedings have been concluded, and the scheduled time when the review officer's written opinion prescribed in paragraph (1) of the following Article and the case record (meaning the written request for review, written explanation, and other documents and objects concerning the case related to the request for review, which are specified by Cabinet Order; the same applies in paragraph (2) of the following Article and Article 43, paragraph (2)) are to be submitted to the reviewing agency. The same applies when the scheduled time of submission has been changed.
Read this with the articles around it
(Submission of Written Explanations)
A review officer is to specify a reasonable period of time and request the administrative agency, etc. reaching the disposition to submit a written explanation.
審理員は、相当の期間を定めて、処分庁等に対し、弁明書の提出を求めるものとする。
Open this provision(Submission of Written Counterarguments)
A requestor for review may submit a document that states the counterarguments against the matters stated in the written explanation sent pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (5) of the preceding…
審査請求人は、前条第五項の規定により送付された弁明書に記載された事項に対する反論を記載した書面（以下「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、審理員が、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。
Open this provision(Submission of Written Counterarguments)
An intervenor may submit a document that states the opinions on the case related to the request for review (referred to as a "written opinion" below, except in Article 40 and Article 42, paragraph…
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（第四十条及び第四十二条第一項を除き、以下「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、審理員が、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。
Open this provision(Submission of Evidence Documents)
In the cases referred to in the preceding two paragraphs, when a review officer has specified a reasonable period of time during which evidence documents or articles of evidence…
前二項の場合において、審理員が、証拠書類若しくは証拠物又は書類その他の物件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。
Open this provision(Request for Submission of Objects)
A review officer may, based on a petition by a requestor for review or an intervenor, or by their authority, specify a reasonable period of time and request the possessor of documents or other…
審理員は、審査請求人若しくは参加人の申立てにより又は職権で、書類その他の物件の所持人に対し、相当の期間を定めて、その物件の提出を求めることができる。この場合において、審理員は、その提出された物件を留め置くことができる。
Open this provision(Conclusion of Procedures for Proceedings)
When a review officer finds that necessary proceedings have been completed, the review officer is to conclude the procedures for proceedings.
審理員は、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。
Open this provision(Conclusion of Procedures for Proceedings)
Beyond what is provided for in the preceding paragraph, a review officer may conclude the procedures for proceedings in any of the following cases:
前項に定めるもののほか、審理員は、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。
Open this provision(Review Officer's Written Opinions)
When the procedures for proceedings have been concluded, a review officer must prepare a written opinion concerning the administrative determination to be made by the reviewing agency…
審理員は、審理手続を終結したときは、遅滞なく、審査庁がすべき裁決に関する意見書（以下「審理員意見書」という。）を作成しなければならない。
Open this provision(Review Officer's Written Opinions)
When a review officer has prepared a review officer's written opinion, the review officer must promptly submit it to the reviewing agency together with the case record.
審理員は、審理員意見書を作成したときは、速やかに、これを事件記録とともに、審査庁に提出しなければならない。
Open this provisionThe consultation under the provisions of the preceding paragraph must be made by attaching copies of the review officer's written opinion and the case record.
前項の規定による諮問は、審理員意見書及び事件記録の写しを添えてしなければならない。
Open this provisionreviewing agency
「審査庁」
The administrative agency (行政庁) with which a request for review (審査請求) has been filed under Article 4 or under another Act (法律) or a local ordinance (条例), including one that took the case over under Article 14 when the power to decide it passed to it through a change in the laws and regulations (法令).
Short name set inArticle 9, paragraph (1)
review officer
「審理員」
The person a reviewing agency (審査庁) designates under Article 9, paragraph (1), from among its own staff (or from the list under Article 17 where it has made one), to conduct the proceedings on a request for review (審査請求).
Short name set inArticle 11, paragraph (2)
persons concerned with proceedings
「審理関係人」
The person requesting review (審査請求人), any intervenor (参加人) and the agency that made the disposition or failed to act (処分庁等), taken together as the parties to the proceedings on a request for review (審査請求).
Short name set inArticle 28, paragraph (1)
written counterargument
「反論書」
A written counterargument that the person requesting review (審査請求人) may submit against what is stated in the written explanation (弁明書) sent to them under Article 29, paragraph (5).
Short name set inArticle 30, paragraph (1)
written opinion
「意見書」
A written statement of opinion on the case that an intervenor (参加人) may submit in the proceedings on a request for review (審査請求); in Article 40 and Article 42, paragraph (1) the same word means the review officer's (審理員) written opinions instead.
Short name set inArticle 30, paragraph (2)· applies from here on, except in Article 40; and Article 42, paragraph (1)
petitioner
「申立人」
In Article 31 and Article 41, paragraph (2), item (ii), the person requesting review (審査請求人) or the intervenor (参加人) who has asked to state their opinion on the case orally to the review officer (審理員).
Short name set inArticle 31, paragraph (1)· applies only in this article and in Article 41, paragraph (2), item (ii)
oral opinion statement
「口頭意見陳述」
The statement of opinion on the case that a person requesting review (審査請求人) or an intervenor (参加人) makes orally, on their request under Article 31, paragraph (1), on a date and at a place the review officer (審理員) sets, with all the persons concerned with the proceedings (審理関係人) called to attend.
Short name set inArticle 31, paragraph (2)
case record
「事件記録」
The documents and other objects relating to a request for review (審査請求) — the written request for review (審査請求書), the written explanation (弁明書) and others — that a Cabinet Order (政令) specifies, which the review officer (審理員) submits to the reviewing agency (審査庁) with the review officer's written opinion (審理員意見書).
Defined inArticle 41, paragraph (3)· applies only in this provision and in Article 42, paragraph (2); and Article 43, paragraph (2)
review officer's written opinion
「審理員意見書」
The written opinion on the determination (裁決) the reviewing agency (審査庁) should make, which the review officer (審理員) must prepare without delay once the review proceedings are closed.
Short name set inArticle 42, 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.