ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร ก ก ก

ข้อมูลกฎหมาย/กฎ คำพิพากษา คำสั่งของศาลปกครองสูงสุดในรูปแบบดิจิทัล
  • หน้าแรก
  • > วิชาการ
  • > สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2563, 09:52น.

Unlawful Order Denying the Right to Receive a Rent Subsidy

The Plaintiff notified the Defendant No.3 that she would like to return official accommodation because it was not suitable to reside. She instead requested a rental subsidy from the Defendant No.3. The Commander only accepted the return of the house yet disapproved the request. The Plaintiff brought this case to the Administrative Court, claiming that the order of the Defendant No.3 not approving the rent payment was unlawful. The Supreme Administrative Court held that considering the reasonable person standard, the Defendant No.3 provided the inappropriate house to the Plaintiff. The allocation of accommodation was not in accordance with Clause 6 paragraph one of the Rule and Procedure on Management of Official Accommodation. Additionally, it was considered that the Defendant No.3 failed to comply with Clause 3 paragraph one (1) of the Rule and Procedure requiring the government to grant accommodation to an official. Therefore, the Plaintiff was entitled to a rental reimbursement under Section 7 paragraph one of the Royal Decree on a Rent Subsidy Provided to a Civil Servant. The mentioned order, denying the right to receive a Rent Subsidy, was unlawful. The Court revoked the order and ordered the revocation thereof to be in effect retrospectively on the day the order was issued.

อ่าน 267   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 3 เม.ย. 2563, 10:40น.

The Wrongful Act by the Disbursement

The Plaintiff was an Academic Official who was aggrieved by the payroll deduction due to the disbursement of the governmental loan. Prince of Songkla University, who was the lender, had deducted the Plaintiff’s salary because the disbursement’s evidence was ambiguous; therefore, the Defendant could not reconcile the loan statement. However, the payroll deduction was neither notified by the Defendant nor permitted to the Plaintiff. According to the Clause 60 of Ministry of Finance’s Regulations on Disbursement from Treasury, to Keep the Money and Sending to Treasury 2008 and Clause 30 of Ministry of Finance’s Regulations on Payroll, Annuity, Pension, Position Allowance, Surcharge and Others in the same manner 2007, it was deemed that the Plaintiff did an unlawful act in accordance with Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

อ่าน 241   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
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).

อ่าน 269   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 16 ม.ค. 2563, 08:16น.

Lacking of Redressability Requirement for Standing

The Plaintiff, a holder of an airline transport pilot license (Helicopter), applied for a job with an air operator, “T Company.” After the Plaintiff had completed ground training, flight simulator training and recurrent training arranged by T Company, he undertook a pilot proficiency check. The pilot proficiency check was conducted by a check airman designated by the Defendant No.1. The check airman did not record the test result in a pilot check report and did not ask the Plaintiff to sign the report. The Plaintiff alleged that the failure of the check airman caused him injuries. He was not hired by T Company after the completion of the training, a type rating was not renewed or added to his license, and increasing flight hours were not recorded in his pilot logbook. The Plaintiff raised the issue with the Defendant No.1 and requested the Defendant No.2 to cancel T Company’s air operator certificate but the Defendant No.1 and No.2 did not take any action. Thus, he filed a plaint with the Administrative Court requesting the Court to order the Defendants to revoke the air operator certificate of T Company. The Court concluded that the revocation of the air operator certificate would not redress the Plaintiff’s injuries; therefore, the Plaintiff had no standing to file a case, pursuant to Section 42 paragraph one of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999).

อ่าน 565   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 12 ธ.ค. 2562, 09:56น.

The Reviewability of an Expired License Suspension Order

The Reviewability of an Expired License Suspension Order

อ่าน 604   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 7 พ.ย. 2562, 10:03น.

The Prohibition of Misleading Advertising

The Plaintiff, a publisher of a weekly magazine, “Car Today” and “Education Today,” made a statement claiming that the magazines were the bestselling magazine. In “Car Today” magazine, the bestselling claim was based on surveys of magazine sales, but the Plaintiff did not disclose that the surveys were conducted solely in Bangkok metropolitan region, and a period of the surveys was in a small print which it is difficult to read. Most consumers would not read the small print as shown in the magazine. The statement would mislead consumers or the public that “Car Today” magazine had been the No.1 bestselling magazine in Thailand. In “Education Today” magazine, the Plaintiff referred to the survey result of other types of magazines – not an education magazine – to support its bestselling claim, and the statement, “Job Advertisement, Home, and Car Book,” was printed in very small font size. Consumers would be misled that “Education Today” magazine was the No.1 bestselling education magazine. The claim displayed in the Plaintiff’s magazines would materially mislead consumers about goods; as a result, the use of the misleading statement in “Car Today” and “Education Today” magazine violated the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). The Defendant No.1 lawfully exercised its discretion to issue orders prohibiting the use of misleading advertisement in the Plaintiff’s magazines.

อ่าน 633   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 7 พ.ย. 2562, 10:06น.

Performing of the Official Information Board’s Duties in Considering a Complaint

The Defendant No.1 did not fail to perform its duties as the Plaintiff claimed. It adequately inspected the existence of the information requested by the Plaintiff. It held two meetings in order to inspect the relevant information, requested the Department of the Treasury to provide facts for consideration, and notified the Plaintiff of the result of its consideration. In addition, Section 34 of the Official Information Act, B.E. 2540 (1997) provides that the Defendant No.1 shall have the power to appoint the sub-committee to consider any matter or perform any act assigned by the Defendant No.1. Thus, the sub-committee was lawfully appointed by the Defendant No.1 and had a delegated power to consider the Plaintiff’s complaint.

อ่าน 612   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
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.

อ่าน 1032   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 5 ส.ค. 2562, 09:57น.

The Court Discretion to Reduce a Penalty Arising from a Breach of Contract

The Defendant No.1 breached a contract for the sale of jammers due to failure to deliver jammers conforming with the contract; as a result, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to a penalty in the amount agreed upon the parties, according to the terms of the agreement. However, the Court found that the amount of the penalty was disproportionately high and it was unreasonable that the Plaintiff delayed in terminating the contract. The Court then decided to reduce the penalty to a reasonable amount, 10% of the contract price, pursuant to Section 383 of the Civil and Commercial Code. In addition, the Defendant No.2 as a guarantor shall not be liable for the penalty exceeding the guaranteed amount.

อ่าน 1107   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 5 ส.ค. 2562, 10:00น.

Unlawful Dismissal Due to the Engagement of a Participant in Disciplinary Proceedings

A Committee of Gross Disciplinary Breach Investigation notified and explained the Plaintiff about misconduct allegations that were made against him, and informed him of evidence which the Committee obtained to support the allegations. The Committee also sent an investigation report to the Defendant No.1 and the Chairman of the Defendant No.2. Thus, the Committee conducted the investigation in accordance with the law. However, a qualified member of the Defendant No.2 who made a complaint against the Plaintiff attended a meeting for determination of penalties. The qualified member was deemed to be a participant and was prohibited to engage in an administrative process under the Administrative Procedure Act, B.E. 2539 (1996). As a result, the resolution to remove the Plaintiff from his office was unlawful and the order of dismissal issued by the Defendant No.1 with the approval of the Defendant No.2 became invalid. A decision to deny the Plaintiff’s appeal was also invalid even though the participant was not present in a meeting for a grant of permission to appeal.

อ่าน 924   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ

รายการข้อมูลทั้งหมด 67 รายการ แสดง : รายการต่อหน้า
  •  
  •  
  • หน้าที่ 1/7
  •  

| กลับขึ้นด้านบน |

เขตอำนาจศาลปกครองเขตอำนาจศาลปกครอง

ศาลปกครอง

สืบค้นข้อมูล

สำนักงานศาลปกครอง

ประชาสัมพันธ์

วิชาการ