ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร ก ก ก

  • หน้าแรก
  • > วิชาการ
  • > สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 4 พ.ค. 2561, 14:18น.

Fail to admission and competitive examination for non-commissioned police officers because of having a criminal record

The phrase “being a person who misbehaves or who lacks good morals” is a legal phrase that does not define an exact meaning. As a result, it depends on the appropriate authorities to exercise their discretion to consider relevant facts and circumstances on a case by case basis, considering the honor bestowed upon government officials, the concerns of the public and the Buddhist moral code. Before the Plaintiff entered into a competitive examination for police officer, he has a record of having been convicted of a charge involving firearms, under the Act on Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Pyrotechnics and Fake Guns, B.E. 2490 (1947), which is a criminal offence. Although the Plaintiff was still a minor when he committed a crime, he was mature enough to differentiate between right and wrong and would have been aware of the results of such a crime. Additionally, since that time, he has not committed any further wrongdoings and has studied diligently and received a Bachelor degree but that cannot expunge his past from a record of misconduct and lack of good morals. Therefore, the decision of the Selection Committee of the Metropolitan Police to disqualify him on the grounds that he lacks the qualifications required for being a police officer under Section 2(2) of the Rules and Regulations of the Police Commission on Qualifications and Forbidden Characteristics for Being a Police Officer B.E. 2547 (2004) is a decision based on a lawful discretion.

อ่าน 41   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 5 เม.ย. 2561, 10:11น.

The Enchained Prisoners versus Rights and Liberties

According to Section 9 paragraph one (1) of Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999), the term “other acts” means an act exercising administrative power in compliance with the law other than the issuance of a rule or an administrative order. In other words, “other acts” is the physical exercise of administrative power or the administrative real act. When the Department of Corrections enchained prisoners under Section 14 paragraph one (3) of Penitentiary Act, B.E. 2479 (1936), it was the physical act, not the issuance of rule or administrative order. The treatment to the prisoners always deprived their rights and liberty as restricted by law. Even though Thailand, as the State party, has an obligation to practice in accordance with Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, the treatment for the prisoners shall be in compliance with the domestic laws unless the laws were amended in accordance with such Convention. Although the use of instruments of restraint was inconvenience to the prisoners, this act was restricted by laws and under the scope of necessity. In addition, the types and sizes of instruments of restraints depending on the prisoners’ behavior did not deprive of the prisoners’ rights and liberty. Therefore, when the Department of Corrections enchained death row prisoners, it was not unlawful.

อ่าน 93   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 9 มี.ค. 2561, 14:00น.

Prescription to File a Case to the Administrative Court after the Civil Court Strikes Such Case Out of the Case-List

The Arbitration returned the dispute to the party for settlement and the Civil Court had an order striking the disputed case out of the Case-List so as to file to the Administrative Court, which is a competent Court, according to Section 10 paragraph one (2) of Act on the Determination of the Powers and Duties among Courts B.E. 2542 (1999), without the adjudication. Consequently, the prescription was not interrupted pursuant to Section 193/17 of Civil and Commercial Code. In case where the contract is unlawfully terminated, the Plaintiff shall file the case to the Administrative Court within sixty day as from the date the Civil Court has an order striking such case out of the Case-List according to Section 13 paragraph two of Act on the Determination of the Powers and Duties among Courts B.E. 2542 (1999). The Plaintiff filed the plaint upon the lapse of the period of time. Consequently, the Administrative Court shall refuse to accept the case for trial

อ่าน 168   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2561, 09:15น.

An Unlawful Discretion of NACC to Refuse the Disclosure of Official Information

The lists of the injured and dead and the descriptions of the places of such injuries and deaths, which were possessed or controlled by the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (ONAC), were considered as the official information. According to Section 56 of Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007) and Section 15 of the Official Information Act B.E. 2540, such official information was not the subject not to be disclosed. Therefore, there did not exist any reasonable grounds to refuse the disclosure thereof. When Defendant No.1 issued the order not to disclose such official information, it was deemed as an unlawful exercise of discretion. The mentioned order was hence unlawful and caused grievances to the Plaintiff by not having fully right to self-defense. As a result, Defendant No.1 did a wrongful act violating the Plaintiff’s right.

อ่าน 236   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 11 ม.ค. 2561, 15:10น.

To Terminate from Member of Subdistrict Administrative Organization Council In Case of Being Imprisoned by A Warrant of The Court

When the Plaintiff, as the member of Subdistrict Administrative Organization Council, was sentenced by a judgement to imprisonment and actually imprisoned for one day during appealing Kwaeng Court judgment and then released for the time being, the membership of the Plaintiff that had been terminated by the law could not be restored. It was considered that the Plaintiff was prohibited from exercising the right to stand for election in an election of Members of Subdistrict Administrative Organization Council according to Section 45 (4) of Act on Election of Members of Local Assemblies and Local Administrators B.E. 2545 (2002). Therefore, the order of the Defendant to terminate the Plaintiff from the member of Subdistrict Administrative Organization Council was lawful.

อ่าน 216   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 20 ธ.ค. 2560, 11:15น.

Time limit of a new administrative order

In considering the appeal where the competent officer fails to complete the appeal consideration within sixty days as from the date of receiving the appeal and do not notify the appellant the necessity to extend the period of time for appeal consideration pursuant to Section 45 paragraph one and two of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996). It is deemed that the completion of sixty days for consideration is the date that the Plaintiff already take action for redress of the grievance or injury in accordance with process and procedure as provided by law and have the right to bring the plaint to the Court according to the Section 42 paragraph two of Act on Establishment of Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999). The plaint shall be filed to the Court within ninety days as from the date after the completion of sixty days as Section 49 of the said Act. However, the Plaintiff brought the plaint to the Court demanding to revoke the order to pay monetary damages on the lapse of time, the competent officer notified the appeal consideration and informed the right to file the plaint to the Administrative Court. The said appeal consideration was deemed to be as a new administrative order and resulted to affirm the order to pay monetary damages. Even the relief sought attached to the plaint pleaded to revoke the said order without pleading to revoke the appeal consideration, the Plaintiff brought such plaint to the Court after receiving the appeal consideration which defined that the Plaintiff intended the Court to consider that appeal consideration as well. The appellant filed the plaint to the Court pleading to revoke such order to pay monetary damages within ninety days as from the date of receiving the appeal consideration was within the time-limit pursuant to Section 49 of Act on Establishment of Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999).

อ่าน 304   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 17 พ.ย. 2560, 08:59น.

Exercise of Discretion to not Disclose Official Information

According to Section 11 paragraph one of the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997), the responsible State agency shall provide the official information to the person making the request within a reasonable period of time. Nonetheless, if the official information is the subject to Section 15 paragraph one of the said Act, The Defendant No.2, as the responsible State agency, has the exclusive discretion either to disclose or not to disclose such official information. In this case, the documents requested to disclose by the Plaintiff were considered as the official information in regard to the complaint accusing the Plaintiff of committing a criminal offence or a breach of discipline. Such official information was a ground for carrying out further legal proceedings and appointing the fact-finding commission. When such official information was still in process of investigating, the disclosure thereof might have an adverse effect on investigation process or other relevant evidences, as well as, it would result in the decline in the efficiency of law enforcement or failure to achieve its objectives as prescribed in Section 15 paragraph one (2) of the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997). Furthermore, the appointment of fact-finding commission was to preliminarily investigate whether or not the case had sufficient merit to allege that such person committed a disciplinary breach. The Plaintiff was therefore not a party in the case according to Section 31 of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996). The Defendant No.2’s order refusing the disclosure of such official information was legitimate.

อ่าน 312   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2560, 09:54น.

The Local Official’s Power over a Private Road

A private road that an owner allowed the public to use as a transport path is “road” and “public place” pursuant to Section 4 of the Act on the Maintenance of the Public Cleanliness and Orderliness, B.E. 2535 (1992). Even though the owner had put up a private road sign, it was only to show that the road had not been abandoned and prevent the road from becoming public domain of the state under Section 1304 (2) of the Civil and Commercial Code. When a person put any object on such a road, the local official has the power to order that person to remove the object from the road. If the violator fails to comply with the order, the local official may assign an official to do so and order the violator to compensate for the expenses as actually incurred.

อ่าน 401   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2560, 10:21น.

Re-claiming the Money Paid to a State Official who was Ineligible

When demanding a state official to repay the money he was not eligible to receive, an administrative agency did not exercise power under the law to issue an order. Such act was the exercise of the debtor’s right of claim. The money received by the state official was unjust enrichment that the debtor was entitled to claim for restitution. If the state official did not restitute the money, it was not deemed as the negligence of official duties required by the law or performing such duties with unreasonable delay. It was also not deemed as a wrongful act or other liabilities arising from the exercise of power under the law. Therefore, re-claiming the money from a state official was not a dispute in relation to a wrongful act or other liabilities of a state official arising from the exercise of power under the law or from a rule, administrative order, or other orders, or from the negligence of official duties required by the law or performing such duties with unreasonable delay pursuant to Section 9 paragraph one (3) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999).

อ่าน 444   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2560, 09:19น.

Revocation of Administrative Orders which were Terminated by Time Constraint

Licenses to construct a biomass power plant issued by Chief Executive of Subdistrict Administrative Organisation, who has no power to do so, were unlawful administrative orders which may be revoked. The termination of unlawful orders by time constraint did not affect the existence of such orders. In the absence of revocation, the said licenses remained unlawful and the construction of biomass power plant authorised by such licenses was thus illegal. Nonetheless, the owner of biomass power plant may submit the application for the correct construction licenses to Energy Regulatory Commission, the competent official under Energy Industry Act, B.E.2550 (2007), in order to legitimise the construction of biomass power plant. Hence, the Court revoked the licenses with retroactive effect from the date of issue.

อ่าน 433   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ

รายการข้อมูลทั้งหมด 44 รายการ แสดง : รายการต่อหน้า
  •  
  •  
  • หน้าที่ 1/5
  •  

| กลับขึ้นด้านบน |

เขตอำนาจศาลปกครองเขตอำนาจศาลปกครอง

ศาลปกครอง

สืบค้นข้อมูล

สำนักงานศาลปกครอง

ประชาสัมพันธ์

วิชาการ