ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร

สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

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.

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.

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.