ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร

ข้อมูลกฎหมาย/กฎ คำพิพากษา คำสั่งของศาลปกครองสูงสุดในรูปแบบดิจิทัล
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 23 พ.ค. 2565, 11:02น.

Filing of A Case concerning The Protection of Public interest

In the case of filing the case with Court requesting the Court to revoke the resolution of the Provincial Land Reform Committee which permitted a person to use land in the land reform area for business operation of cassava drying yard, such case should be filed with the Court within ninety days as from the date the cause of action was known or should have been known. In this case, when the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Damrongtha m Provincial Center, it was deemed that the Plaintiff had known or should have known the cause of action. When the Plaintiff filed the aforementioned case after the said prescription, it was considered that the Plaintiff filed the case after the lapse of time within which an administrative case could be filed. However, the grievances from d ust, noise pollution, and foul odor as the result of business operation of cassava drying yard might adversely affect not only the Plaintiff whom his house located nearby the business establishment but also the residents who Lived around such area; additionally, these grieva nces might negatively affect people who passed by this area, as well. It was deemed that it was a filing of a case concerning the protection of public interest which it might be filed at any time according to Section 52, paragraph one of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999). The Administrative Courts therefore accepted the case for trial and adjudication even after the lapse of time for filing such case.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 25 มี.ค. 2565, 10:08น.

Ordering the Office of the Consumer Protection Board to consider product safety complaints

The Plaintiff concluded an Agreement of Purchase and Sale by agreeing to purchase an apartment with a business operator. Later, the Plaintiff found that the elevators in the building were not properly working. The Plaintiff sent a letter asking the business operator to fix the problem for several times, but the said problem had still occurred. In addition, a water heater inside the bathroom was wrongly installed, which may be harmful to life and property of the Plaintiff and other residents living in the same building. The business operator had ignored the said problem. The Plaintiff then lodged her complaints relating to such unsafe products to the Defendant No.1 on 10th and 11th October 2013. The Defendant No.1 did not issue a summon instructing the business operator to appear for giving statements or evidence as necessary for assisting in the consideration of competent officials until 10th April 2014, which was the date the Plaintiff filed a plaint to the Administrative Court of First Instance. The act of the Defendant No.1 was not consistent with the Consumer Protection Act, B.E. 2522 (1979). Therefore, the Administrative Court of First Instance held that the Defendant No.1 performed its duty as required by the law with unreasonable delay. The Court ordered the Defendant No.1 to take action in investigating the Plaintiff’s complaints within forty-five days from the date the judgment is final. The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 4 มี.ค. 2565, 09:22น.

Unfair Discrimination and Infringement of Equality of Insured Persons by Limiting the Number of Dialysis Treatment

The Plaintiff who was an insured person under the Social Security Act, B.E. 2533 (1990) was diagnosed with having chronic kidney disease and a doctor determined that he had to receive dialysis treatment. The Plaintiff was charged for the treatment; however, he could not afford to pay the medical fees so he claimed medical expense reimbursement under the Social Security Act. Clause 5 (1) (b) of the Rules, Conditions and Rate of Medical Fees for Renal Replacement Therapy, the annex of the Announcement of the Medical Committee on the Rule and Rate of Benefit Reimbursed from Illness Not Occurring from Work, specifies that the rate of dialysis fees shall be no more than 1,500 Baht per time and no more than 4,500 Baht per week and an insured person shall be responsible for an excess of the fees. Consequently, the Plaintiff could not access to medical treatment because he could not afford to pay uncovered fees. Thus, the Plaintiff filed a case with the Administrative Court requesting the Court to revoke Clause 5 (1) (b) of the rules and to order the Defendants No.1 to No.4 to determine how the Plaintiff would receive dialysis treatment by not requiring him to pay an excess of the dialysis fees or treatment approval. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the limitation of the number of dialysis treatment per week was different from the benefit provided by the Universal Health Coverage Scheme and created a burden to an insured person since he or she had to pay an excess of medical expenses. In addition, there was no adequate reason to support the decision to limit the number of treatment per week to be different

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 3 ก.พ. 2565, 15:28น.

Liability for Damage Caused by Fallen Tree Branches on a Car That Parked in Time-limited Parking Street

According to Section 89 paragraph one (6) and (10) of Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Act B.E. 2528 (1985), Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) has the authority and duty to carry out the maintenance of roads, waterways, drainage system and public space. In this case, the officials of the Defendant failed to perform the duty to maintain the trees within its district by not trimming tree branches that may cause danger to people’s lives and properties. Consequently, branches of the tree that situated beside the street fell on a car due to a mere slight rain. Hence, it was deemed that the Defendant neglected its official duty required by the law to perform and eventually committed a wrongful act pursuant to Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the car owner was at fault as well for not only parking under the tree during the rain which was contrary to the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances knowing that brittle trees and their branches are prone to fall, but also for parking on restricted street in non-prescribed hours. Therefore, the responsibility for damage caused by fallen tree branches on the car shall not be vested fully on the Defendant but shall be greater attributed to the car owner since the damage was inflicted by the negligence along with the failure to obey the traffic regulation of the car owner.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 29 ธ.ค. 2564, 10:17น.
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 29 ธ.ค. 2564, 10:25น.

Building Repairs within the Area of Historical Site

The Plaintiff was an owner of a land located within the area of historical site, “Roi Et ditches and walls.” The Director of the 10th Regional Office of Fine Arts notified the Plaintiff that she failed to comply with the requirement specified by the law since she had demolished buildings on her land to construct new buildings and ordered the Plaintiff to immediately suspend the construction and tear down the buildings. The Defendant considered the Plaintiff’s appeal and decided that she shall demolish and remove her buildings and clear a construction site. The Plaintiff argued that the order was unlawfully issued so she filed a case with the Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Plaintiff’s land located within the area of historical site was considered as a historical site. However, her four buildings were constructed before the Plaintiff’s land was determined as a historical site and those buildings were not or parts of a historical site. Thus, the Plaintiff was able to repair them without permission of the Defendant or the 10th Regional Office of Fine Arts pursuant to the Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums. Moreover, the Plaintiff merely repaired the buildings not construct new buildings. The Defendant did not have power under the said Act to order the Plaintiff to demolish and remove her buildings and clear a construction site. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s decision was unlawfully issued. The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Court of First Instance to revoke the order issued by the Defendant in effect retrospectively on the day the order was issued.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2564, 09:18น.

Unlawful Order to Assist Other Department in the Performance of Functions

A plan and policy analyst position was held to a higher performance standard than a government service officer position. The job description of the plan and policy analyst and the government service officer position were distinctly different in terms of knowledge and capabilities. The Mayor ordered a municipal officer, a policy and plan analyst, to assist other department in the performance of administration tasks without a specific job description or available position. The Mayor’s order resulted in decreasing roles and responsibilities of the municipal officer and lacking opportunities to increase knowledge, capabilities and experience required for promotion to a higher-level position. The Plaintiff still held the plan and policy analysis position and received the same amount of salary, and was not deprived of either rights and benefits, or a status of a municipality officer; however, the Plaintiff who was ordered to assist other department in the performance of functions was inevitably aggrieved or injured. Thus, the Plaintiff was entitled to file a case with the Court, according to Section 42 paragraph one of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999). Although the Mayor shall have power to manage personnel in the Municipality so as to successfully provide public services, he must have justification to issue the order and shall comply with the prescribed laws, regulations and rules. If the Mayor did so, his discretion would be lawfully exercised. The job description and duties and responsibilities of the plan and policy analyst (Level 4) and the government service officer position were clearly different. In addition, there was no fact presented that any effect or injury would occur if the order was not issued. Accordingly, the Mayor’s issuance of the order was the unlawful exercise of discretion