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

ขนาดอักษร ก ก ก

  • หน้าแรก
  • > วิชาการ
  • > สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

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 33   |  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 79   |  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 86   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2560, 08:20น.

Official Duties to Disclose Information of N.C.C. Commission

The inquiry file of a corruption offence from the completed inquiry process was deemed as the information acquired from the performance of duty of Defendant No.2 under the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E. 2540 (1997) and possessed or controlled by Defendant No.1. Such inquiry file was thus the official information according to Section 4 of the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997). Furthermore, Defendant No.2 also had the exclusive discretion to determine whether or not the information requested in writing should be disclosed. To exercise such discretion, it was necessary to consider Section 56 of Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), as well as, the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997), which is the specific law issuing the disclosure rule of the information in possession or control of a State agency. In this case, there did not exist any reasonable grounds that official information requested to reveal by the plaintiff not to be disclosed. The Information Disclosure Tribunals further considered that Defendants No.1 and No.2 had to disclose such official information in order to verify the transparency in performing their official duties. In addition, according to the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997), Defendants No.1 and No.2 were the State agency and the State official, respectively; the decision of the Information Disclosure Tribunal hence had a binding effect. Therefore, when Defendants No.1 and No.2 failed to comply with such decision, it was deemed that both Defendants neglected official duties required by the law to be performed under Section 9(2) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999).

อ่าน 150   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
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 158   |  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 170   |  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 200   |  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 276   |  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 365   |  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 318   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ

รายการข้อมูลทั้งหมด 37 รายการ แสดง : รายการต่อหน้า
  •  
  •  
  • หน้าที่ 1/4
  •  

| กลับขึ้นด้านบน |

เขตอำนาจศาลปกครองเขตอำนาจศาลปกครอง

ศาลปกครอง

สืบค้นข้อมูล

สำนักงานศาลปกครอง

ประชาสัมพันธ์

วิชาการ