ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร ก ก ก

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

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2563, 09:00น.

Conflict of Interest in the Security Guard Employment Contract

In the case where the Plaintiff who held the position of the Chief Executive of the Subdistrict Administrative Organization approved to employ his son to be a security guard of such Subdistrict Administrative Organization by using the state budget, it could be seen that the Plaintiff’s son would take some amount of his monthly wages to maintain his parent as the duties required by the law pursuant to Section 1563 of the Civil and Commercial Code. Although the employment procurement was lawful, such the Plaintiff’s approval was carried out for personal interest rather than public interest. Thus, it was considered that the Plaintiff had an indirect interest in a contract with such Subdistrict Administrative Organization which was prohibited by Section 64/2 paragraph one (3) of Subdistrict Council and Subdistrict Administrative Organization Act, B.E. 2537 (1994) and the amendment. As well, Defendant No.1 was empowered to inquire and render a decision to vacate the Plaintiff from his position pursuant to Section 64/2 of the said Act. The decision of Defendant No.1 vacating the Plaintiff from his previous position was deemed a reasonable and lawful discretion.

อ่าน 59   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 6 ส.ค. 2563, 13:22น.

Abuse of Discretion to Grant Permission for the Use of Land in a Land Reform Area

The Plaintiff No.1 was informed by a village headman that the Defendants No.2 to No.6 falsely provided information to the Office of Provincial Agricultural Land Reform, Nakorn Sri Thammarat, and the Defendant No.1 took the information into consideration and granted the Defendants No.2 to No.6 permission for the use of five parcels of land which the Plaintiffs No.1 to No.3 possessed. The Plaintiffs could not acquire the disputed lands so they filed a case with the Administrative Court of the First Instance. According to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice which had the cause of action related to this case, the evidence of the Plaintiff No.1 was more reliable than the evidence of the Defendants No.2 to No.6. It could be concluded that the Defendants No.2 to No.6 did not use the disputed lands so they were not entitled to acquire the lands. Thus, the Supreme Administrative Court determined that the Defendants No.2 to No.6 were not a farmer who possessed a state land and operated agriculture in a land reform area so they were not entitled to use the disputed lands. As a result, the resolution of the Defendant No.1 granting permission for the use of land to the Defendants No.2 to No.6 was invalid. The Defendant No.1 abused its discretion by unlawfully issuing the order without adequate reason. The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed the judgment of the Administrative Court of First Instance to revoke the resolution of the Defendant No.1 in effect of the date of issuance and dismiss the plaint filed against the Defendants No.2 to No.6.

อ่าน 209   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 9 ก.ค. 2563, 10:53น.

Liability without fault of Administrative Agency in Water Management Practice

The accelerated drainage and water diversion practices for the propose of damage control by the Royal Irrigation Department are the water management practices within the scope and in accordance with the purpose of the Royal Irrigation Act B.E. 2485 which is the prevention of disaster whereas the public interests must be considered. The water management is proceeding in accordance with the powers and duties stipulated by law. Where there is no unlawful act, there can be no conviction for torts from injuring the individual. However, if the said act caused damage to the rights of any person, the administrative agency is liable to compensate for damage. The purpose is to protect the rights of individuals who are especially burdened by the government's other liability actions. However, the compensation, in this case, is not compensation of torts which the purpose of compensatory damages in tort law is to place a plaintiff as far as possible in the position in which they would have been or had the wrong not occurred. In this case, it is compensation for damages that are more than usual caused by the actions of administrative agencies. When the damage partly caused by heavy rainfall that is a natural disaster and another part was caused by accelerated drainage from the dam, therefore, the causes of flooding in the injured persons’ property were a result of both nature and administrative agency factors. The administrative agency must compensate only for damages that caused by water management without claiming that the damages were caused by natural disaster and exercised its authority in a manner that is consistent with the law so, it shall not be liable for any damage.

อ่าน 250   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ
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 525   |  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 407   |  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 451   |  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 783   |  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 797   |  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 804   |  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 778   |  ดูรายละเอียดบทความ

รายการข้อมูลทั้งหมด 70 รายการ แสดง : รายการต่อหน้า
  •  
  •  
  • หน้าที่ 1/7
  •  

| กลับขึ้นด้านบน |

เขตอำนาจศาลปกครองเขตอำนาจศาลปกครอง

ศาลปกครอง

สืบค้นข้อมูล

สำนักงานศาลปกครอง

ประชาสัมพันธ์

วิชาการ