ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
สืบค้นข้อมูล | แผนผังเว็บไซต์ | รวมลิ้งค์ | รวมป้ายกำกับ | ติดต่อเรา

ขนาดอักษร ก ก ก

  • หน้าแรก
  • > วิชาการ
  • > สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2560, 13:35น.

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 20   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 6 มิ.ย. 2560, 15:54น.

The Jurisdiction of the Administrative Court over the Contract of Suretyship

If a primary contract is an administrative contract, a surety contract which is the accessory of the primary contract shall be under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court and shall be filed within the prescription period applied to the administrative contract under Section 9 paragraph one (4) and Section 51 of the Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure Act B.E. 2542 (1999). According to Sections 193/14 (1) and 193/15 of Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand the prescription is interrupted if a debtor has acknowledged the claim towards the creditor by written acknowledgement, by part payment, or payment of interest. And a fresh period of prescription begins to run from the time when the interruption ceases subject to Section 193/15 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

อ่าน 38   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2560, 09:31น.

Official Duties on Controlling GMO Contamination (GMO Papaya Case)

According to Sections 17, 18 and 20 of the Plant Quarantine Act, B.E. 2507 (A.D. 1964) the Defendants have power and duties to declare a plant pest control area and to inspect and destroy the plant pest which caused serious damage. In this case Defendant No.2 had already announced a plant pest control area for the purpose of inspection and eradication of the GMO contamination of papayas in affected areas. Also Defendant No.1 had ceased field trials, cut down GM papayas, and regularly inspected samples of papayas sold at markets, department stores and farms from September 2004 to May 2005. Therefore, the Defendants had already fulfilled their official duties required by law to inspect and eradicate the GMO contamination of papayas.

อ่าน 79   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 24 เม.ย. 2560, 10:27น.

An Exemption of Right to be Heard and Duty to Give Reasons

Mayor had discretionary power to appoint any qualified person whom he trusted as Deputy Mayor, and to discharge any Deputy Mayor whom he mistrusted. An order discharging Deputy Mayor from his position due to distrustfulness was not considered as punishment. Also, the cause of distrustfulness did not necessarily need to be a particular act or circumstance of Deputy Mayor. It could be caused by various acts or circumstances as a whole. Thus, an exercise of discretionary power by the Defendant to issue an order discharging the Plaintiff was not subjected to Section 30 and 37 of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1998). The order of the Defendant was not unlawful

อ่าน 151   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 14 มี.ค. 2560, 09:33น.

A Wrongful Act of an Administrative Agency and a State Official Arising from the Neglect of Official Duties Required by Law

“The Project of Lay Your Home in Cop’s Hand” established and approved by the Defendant is the measure with a purpose to prevent crimes and maintain public order which are the duties and powers of a police force under Law. According to this project, a red box signifying a police checkpoint and a check book had to be installed in front of each house participating in this project. Also, the police officers were assigned to patrol around the participating houses and sign their names in the check books. There was, however, no police officer performing such assigned duty suitably; the Plaintiff’s house was broken in and some property belongings were stolen. The acts of the Defendants were considered as a wrongful act arising from the neglect of official required by the law under Section 9 (3) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542. In this case, according to Section 5 Paragraph one of the Act on Liability for Wrongful Act of Official B.E. 2539 the Plaintiff cannot file a case against the Defendant No.1 but shall directly sue to the Defendant No.2 which is a government agency liable to an aggrieved person for the result of a wrongful act by its officer in the performance of his or her duties

อ่าน 256   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 3 ก.พ. 2560, 09:47น.

Administrative Order to Impose Salary Deduction to Official in Case of Unlawful Approval of the Contract Extension

According to Clause 132 of Regulation of Ministry of Interior on Procurement of Local Administration B.E. 2535 (1992) and Clause 220 of the agricultural waterway contract dated 13th September 2001, a contractor shall deliver written notice to an employer in the event of force majeure or circumstance and request for extending period of performance for 15 days from the date of termination of force majeure event or circumstance. In this case, the notice of the contractor for extending period of performance was delivered to the Plaintiff beyond 15 days from the date of termination of force majeure event. And the Municipal Clerk and the supply officer of Chomthong Subdistrict Municipality also gave opinions that the contractor’s request of the validity period extension was against Clause 132 of the said Regulation of Ministry of Interior and Clause 22 of the contract. The Plaintiff’s approval of the contract extension was undue exercise of discretion and illegal. The Defendant’s resolution of the Plaintiff’s salary deduction was lawful.

อ่าน 196   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 11 ม.ค. 2560, 08:57น.

State Liability for Wrongful Act Caused by Negligence of Individual

The Plaintiff’s son drove his car so excessive high that he cannot slow down or stop his car in time when proceeding to the T-junction, causing himself and his car drowned in the pond opposite the T-junction and died. The act of Plaintiff’s son was not the conduct of the reasonable man. And, the accident was directly the result of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s son, only. Even though the Defendant was negligent to keep road and road signs in good repair against Section 67 paragraph one (1) of the Tambon Council and Tambon Administrative Organization Act, B.E. 2537 (1994), the negligence was not the factor of the death of the Plaintiff’s son. The Defendant was not liable to the death of the Plaintiff’s son and compensation to the Plaintiff.

อ่าน 216   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 9 ธ.ค. 2559, 15:19น.

To Dismiss the Government Official from the Service in Case of Malfeasance of Duty

Under the Regulation of Prince of Songkla University on PSU Fund for Southern Research and Development B.E. 2532 (1989) and the Regulation of Prince of Songkla University on University Income B.E. 2535 (1992), a disbursement official has duty to submit the disbursement memo and loan agreement of the payment for research participants, through Director of the Research and Development Bureau and Vice President for the Research and Graduate Studies, for the approval of the Defendant No.1. After the approval, cash shall be withdrawn from the fund account and paid to researchers by the official rapidly. When the Plaintiff deposited one of research participant’s remuneration in her own account and used the money for her own benefit, the act of the Plaintiff was malfeasance in office and serious breach of discipline in accordance with Section 39 paragraph three of Civil Service Act in Higher Education Institution B.E. 2547 (2004). The dismissal order of the Defendant No.1 and the order rejecting appeal of the Defendant No.2 were lawful.

อ่าน 214   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 7 พ.ย. 2559, 13:57น.

The Administrative Official Neglects to Perform His Duty in Building Inspection (Santika Club)*

According to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Act, B.E. 2528 (1985), Building Control Act, B.E. 2522 (1979), and order of the Defendant dated 27th July 1999, the Director of Vadhana District acting on behalf of the Defendant shall have power to consider granting and revoking license of construction or modification of the building, and to prohibit any person from using or entering into any part of the building or the site not accurately done as licensed. The Director of Vadhana District, however, did not perform his duty by inspecting whether the construction of the Santika Club had been accurately done as licensed. The death of the Plaintiff’s son was the direct result of the negligence and wrongful act of the Director of Vadhana District pursuant to Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code. As an State agency, the Defendant shall be liable to the Plaintiff for the result of wrongful act of its officials in the performance of their duty under Section 5 of Act on Liability for Wrongful Act of Official, B.E. 2539 (1996).

อ่าน 204   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 19 ต.ค. 2559, 14:40น.

An Unlawful Dismissal Order Issued by the State Official on the Basis of Incompetent Resolution of NACC

According to Section 301 paragraph one (3) of Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2540 (1997) and Section 19 (3) of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E. 2542 (1999) the National Anti – Corruption Commissioner (NACC) has powers and duties to inquire and decide whether a State official has become unusually wealthy or has committed an offence of corruption, malfeasance in office or malfeasance in judicial office. In this case, only the corruption offence was the disciplinary offence in the competence of the NACC. When the other three offences were not under the NACC competence, the resolution of the NACC did not bind the Defendant. The report, documents and opinion of the NACC was not the disciplinary inquiry file of the disciplinary inquiry committee according to Section 92 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E. 2542 (1999). In addition, there was no rule of the Department of Lands stating that the Plaintiff had official duty to survey plots of land by his own. And there was no evidence that the Plaintiff conspired with someone in intentionally issuing or omitting to issue land title deeds for undue benefits of his own or the others against Section 82 paragraph three the Civil Service Act, B.E. 2535 (1992). The dismissal order of the Defendant by the resolution of the NACC was unlawful.

อ่าน 256   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ

รายการข้อมูลทั้งหมด 34 รายการ แสดง : รายการต่อหน้า
  •  
  •  
  • หน้าที่ 1/4
  •  

| กลับขึ้นด้านบน |

เขตอำนาจศาลปกครองเขตอำนาจศาลปกครอง

ศาลปกครอง

สืบค้นข้อมูล

สำนักงานศาลปกครอง

ประชาสัมพันธ์

วิชาการ