ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
คำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครองไทย

คำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครองไทย

According to Clause 6 (3) and Clause 7 of the Ministerial Regulation on the Criteria and Method for the Disbursement of Subsistence Allowance for Older Persons, B.E. 2552 (2009), an elder person who is about to reach sixty years of age in the next government’s fiscal year must apply for the old-age monthly allowance with the competent authorities in November every year in order to obtain such allowance. Since the Plaintiff claimed to apply for such aid during the unprescribed time yet he was unable to provide any evidence thereof, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive the allowance during the B.E. 2558 government’s fiscal year as he did not follow the stipulated procedure. After examining the Plaintiff’s petitions, the Defendant announced the additional eligibility list for monthly old-age allowance of the B.E. 2559 government’s fiscal year (1st October B.E. 2558 to 30th September B.E. 2559) with the Plaintiff’s name in the list even though he did not adhere to the procedure of the said Ministerial Regulation. The Plaintiff eventually acquired the allowance since October B.E. 2558 henceforward. Therefore, the Defendant did not neglect its official duties required by the law to be performed and did not commit a wrongful act pursuant to Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code. However, since the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff about the amendment of the eligibility list, the Plaintiff still misunderstood that he had to take further legal actions to gain the monthly allowance. Consequently, the Defendant was liable to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff for the costs incurred from filing several petitions to the relevant authorities and filing a case with Administrative Court in the amount of 5,000 baht.
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.
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

ข้อมูลทั้งหมด 95 รายการ
แสดงข้อมูล
รายการต่อหน้า
  • หน้า 1/10