ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร

สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 6 มี.ค. 2562, 11:22น.

Right to claim for housing rent of government official in case of relocation during the investigation of disciplinary proceedings

Royal Decree Housing Rent of Government Official B.E. 2547 (2004) and Regulation of Ministry of Finance on Criteria and Procedures regarding Withdrawal of Housing Rent of Government Agency, B.E. 2549 (2006) do not provide the specific time period for consideration of housing rent application, the government agency then has the duty to consider the application within reasonable time and by the case–by-case basis. The Plaintiff exercises the right to apply for housing rent due to the Order of relocation to perform official duties, at another place for the interest of fact inquiry during investigation process, resulting in the wrongfully performing official duty and suspicious behaviour to malfeasance made by the Plaintiff. Therefore, government agency has to make the consideration of the competent authority for the approval of housing rent application and the withdrawal from the budget owner. Moreover, the Plaintiff exercised the right to claim for the housing rent almost three years retroactively which could not be considered as a general case. This leading to the inquiry before the approval in order to ensure that the consideration of the housing rent is in a discreet and correct manner. Therefore, the consideration and approval of the housing rent application of the competent authority in the period of 339 days is a reasonable period of time and not a wrongful act according to the Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2562, 09:15น.

Legal Status of an Order of the Royal Thai Police Issued under Immigration Act

Order of the Royal Thai Police on Rules and Conditions for the Determination of Requests for Temporary Stay in the Kingdom, dated 8th September B.E. 2549 (2006) was applied only to the performance of duty of police officers; it did not have general application. The said Order of the Royal Thai Police was thus an internal administrative measure, not a rule. Clause 7 (7.24) of the Order of the Royal Thai Police, dated 8th September B.E. 2549 (2006) stipulated that a request for temporary stay in the case of receiving medical treatment, attending rehabilitation, or taking care of a patient shall be accompanied by a letter of confirmation and request for a temporary stay issued by a physician of the hospital providing said medical treatment. An opinion from doctor was crucial in order for the competent official to determine whether the illness was an impediment to travel. Moreover, the Order of the Royal Thai Police, dated 8th September B.E. 2549 (2006) was issued under Section 35 of Immigration Act, B.E. 2522 (1979), of which the purpose was to maintain national security and public order. To this end, rules and conditions in granting permission for temporary stay must be stringent. It was thus justified to demand that a letter of confirmation and request for temporary stay needed to be issued by physicians working in hospitals, not in clinics, so as to ensure the accuracy and truthfulness of the letter. Consequently, Order of the Royal Thai Police on Rules and Conditions for the Determination of Requests for Temporary Stay in the Kingdom, dated 8th September B.E. 2549 (2006) was lawful.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 1 ส.ค. 2561, 13:25น.
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 3 ก.ค. 2561, 13:47น.
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2561, 15:28น.

Compensation in case of the state agency rejected the qualified candidates to sign employment contracts

When issuing a Notification on admission and examination for the selection of individuals for appointment as government officials in situations where a state agency has not yet been allocated its budget according to the Act on Budgets for Annual Expenditures, and there are no existing circumstances to indicate beyond any doubt that the state agency will receive its budget, such agency has the obligation to issue the Notification in such a way as to make clear that any individuals selected will be called to report to the agency to sign an employment contract only when the budget has been allocated, or to use any other wording to the same effect. When the state agency issued a Notification on Admission and Examination for the Selection of Individuals for Appointment as Government Officials, specifying the exact date on which individuals selected would be called to report to the agency to sign employment contracts, even though the agency had not yet received its budget, and there were no existing circumstances to indicate whether the budget would be allocated or not, the issuing of the Notification in that manner by the agency would be considered as an action carried out negligently. And when the state agency rejected the individuals who were selected to come in to sign employment contracts, as stated in the Notification, and such failure caused damage to the individuals because they had resigned from their old jobs to prepare themselves for new jobs, such failure would be considered as a tort, according to Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code.