ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร

ข้อมูลกฎหมาย/กฎ คำพิพากษา คำสั่งของศาลปกครองสูงสุดในรูปแบบดิจิทัล
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2563, 09:52น.
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 9 มี.ค. 2563, 14:59น.

The Delayed Disclosure of Official Information by the State Agency not directly causing the Plaintiff’s Grievances

According the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997), there was no specific period of time for the State agency to provide official information to the person making the request thereof, the State agency had to comply with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, B.E. 2539 (1996), as well as the Cabinet Resolution issuing on December 28th, 2003, the policy in rapidly providing the official information to people that all State agencies must be complied with. According to the said Cabinet Resolution, if the request of the official information is made for an excessive amount or it is unable to complete the process providing thereof within 15 days, the State agency shall notify the person making such request within 15 days, including the specified date that such requested process shall be completed. In this case, Defendant No.1 as the State agency spent 298 days in providing the requested official information without notifying the Plaintiff of the specified date that such requested process should be completed; therefore, it was deemed that Defendant No.1 performed official duties required by the law to be performed with unreasonable delay. Furthermore, according to Section 28 of the Administrative Procedure Act, B.E. 2539 (1996), the inquiry proceedings of the commission of disciplinary inquiry was an administrative proceeding and the official might verify the facts of the matters as appropriate. When the requested documents were not the evidence that might be used to defend her allegation, the Plaintiff did not need to use such documents for challenging the administrative proceedings. Thus, the Plaintiff’s grievances were not the direct results from Defendant No.1’s delayed disclosure of the official information; Defendant No.1 was not liable for the compensation for such in accordance to Section 420 of Civil and Commercial Code and Section 5 paragraph one of the Liability for Wrongful Acts of Officials Act, B.E. 2539 (1996).

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 16 ม.ค. 2563, 08:16น.
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 7 พ.ย. 2562, 10:03น.
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 3 ก.ย. 2562, 13:12น.

The Determination of the Trade Competition Act Violation

The Defendant No. 4 appointed a specialized subcommittee to consider whether Abbott Laboratories Limited (Abbott) violated the Trade Competition Act, B.E. 2542 (1999) as the Plaintiffs claimed. It considered a specialized subcommittee’s opinion on the allegations and determined that Abbott did not violate the Trade Competition Act by cancelling its application to register an antiretroviral HIV drug, “Aluvia.” The resolution adopted by the Defendant No.4 to determine Abbott’s violation of the Trade Competition Act was a lawful administrative act. Abbott did not violate Section 25 (3) of the Trade Competition Act. Abbott did not import Aluvia for sale in the market because Abbott’s application to Aluvia registration was not approved. As a result, Abbott was not a business operator in the Aluvia market under the Trade Competition Act. Moreover, Abbott’s request to cancel its application to register Aluvia was not in violation to Section 28 of the Trade Competition Act. Abbott had a relation to Abbott (United States of America) through shareholding and policies by following a policy of Abbott (United States of America) to withdraw its application. However, Abbott’s request did not limit the opportunity of the Plaintiffs, including HIV and AIDS patients, to purchase Aluvia directly from business operators outside Thailand. The Government Pharmaceutical Organization was also still able to import or place an order of a drug that had the same formulation of Lopinavir and Ritonir as Aluvia from India for sale in Thailand. Therefore, the Plaintiffs, including HIV and AIDS patients, were able to purchase Kaletra which was identical to Aluvia in Thailand. Finally, the Defendant No.4 by the specialized subcommittee complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, B.E. 2539 (1996) in considering the Plaintiff’s complaint on the violation of the Trade Competition Act.