ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
คำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครองไทย

คำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครองไทย

The Authority of a Local Official to Permit Street Vending on Public Roads
The Plaintiff, who had a residence and opened a clothing store on Chamroenwithi road, claimed that he was aggrieved by the Announcement of the Defendant Re Conditions and Rules for Allowing Vendors on Chamroenwithi Road, dated 12th August B.E. 2555 (2012), which permitted street vendors to cook food, sell or distribute goods on Chamroenwithi road from 6.00 to 24.00. Due to this Announcement, a noodle stall was set up in front of the Plaintiff’s store, which obscured the building and caused pollution. The Plaintiff therefore requested the Administrative Court to revoke said Announcement. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Defendant stipulated the conditions for vendors to sell goods in specific areas from 6.00 to 24.00—morning shift from 6.00 to 15.30 and afternoon shift from 15.30 to 24.00. By setting the permitted time in this manner, vending was practically allowed all day. The time period that vending was prohibited was only from 00.01 to 05.59, which was the time when most people were resting at home, not going outside. As a result of such permission, street stalls were set up and obscured the front of the Plaintiff’s building as well as other commercial buildings along Chamroenwithi road for the whole day. This caused an undue burden and was neither a temporary nor appropriate permission under the Act on the Maintenance of the Cleanliness and Orderliness of the Country, B.E. 2535 (1992). Consequently, the Announcement of the Defendant Re Conditions and Rules for Allowing Vendors on Chamroenwithi Road, dated 12th August B.E. 2555 (2012), was unlawful and shall be revoked.
อ่าน 6
อ่านรายละเอียด
The Discretionary Power of Administrative Agency in Policy-making Regarding Public Services Facilitation
The Plaintiff, who resided in the area of responsibility of the Defendants, made a written complaint, dated 30th November B.E. 2561 (2018), requesting the Defendant No.1 to install convex traffic mirrors at the junctions of Prachachuen 12 Alley. In spite of that, the Defendant No.1 did not replied to the Plaintiff nor delivered the requested public service. Thus, she filed a plaint with the Administrative Court requesting the Court to order the Defendants to install the convex traffic mirrors as demanded. The Court reaffirmed that the administrative agency had discretionary power to plan out the public services management policy independently while considering practicability, budget, urgency and consequential effects of each choices. Seeing that there were various factors involved that the Defendants had to take into considerations, the Court could not rule over the discretion of the Defendants in policy-making regarding public services facilitations. Given that the relief the Plaintiff sought could not be granted by the Court, the Plaintiff had no standing to file a case in the Court according to Section 42 paragraph one of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999).
อ่าน 49
อ่านรายละเอียด
Termination from police service because of having a criminal record on leading an assembly
The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant No.2 issued an order of the instatement of persons to the police service as Non-Commissioned Officer from candidates who had been selected and had passed the competitive examination for 460 persons, dated 25th September B.E. 2552 (2009). The Plaintiff was instated and appointed to the position of Squad Leader, Crowds Control Sub-Division 2, Protection and Crowds Control Division. Later, the Defendant No.2 issued an order terminating the Plaintiff from his police service due to the fact that he had a record of criminal offence on leading an assembly and gathering of persons relating to low paddy price issue. Therefore, the Plaintiff was considered as a person having bad behavior and lacking of good morals, which resulted in a disqualification as prescribed by Rule 2(2) of the Regulation of the Police Commission on Qualifications and Prohibited Characteristics for Being a Police Officer, B.E. 2547 (2004). The Plaintiff submitted an appeal letter to the Police Commission. The Police Commission had a decision that the order terminating the Plaintiff from police service was lawful. As a result, the Plaintiff filed a plaint with the Administrative Court to adjudicate or order the Defendant No. 1 to revoke the order, date 30th August B.E. 2553 (2010) amended on 11th May B.E. 2554 (2011), only in part of the termination from service. The Administrative Court of First Instance ordered a revocation of the said order. The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed.
อ่าน 172
อ่านรายละเอียด
Department of Highways Neglects its Official Duty to Build or Correct A Drainage Passing A Highway
According to Section 32 of the Highways Act, B.E. 2535 (1992), the Defendant has the power to, as necessary, build or correct a drainage passing a highway, or build or correct a drainage from a highway, to deviate water to a nearby public water source. Therefore, in the case where there was a damage owning to the construction of the huge drainage tunnels under Highway No. 33 in order to drain water through such tunnels from the mountain range to the Plaintiffs' land, the Defendant had to solve such problem by performing the duty in compliance with the above-mentioned provision. Despite the fact that the Defendant solved the problem by many means, such as digging a path to enable the water flowing out in parallel with Highway No. 33, the alleviations of such grievance or injury for the Plaintiffs were not adequate. The Plaintiffs were still damaged owning to the drainage of water through the tunnels flowing to their land. Thus, it was deemed that the Defendant did not build or correct a drainage passing a highway pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act. This case was considered that the Defendant committed a wrongful act arising from the neglect of official duties required by the law to perform; the Defendant therefore was required to provide the redress of the grievance or injury for the Plaintiffs by building or correcting a drainage passing a highway so as to prevent the damage upon the Plaintiffs' land.
อ่าน 184
อ่านรายละเอียด
Compensation for not notifying the status of the petition for the monthly old-age allowance to the petitioner
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.
อ่าน 286
อ่านรายละเอียด
Groin Construction Causing Land Erosion
The Defendant No.1 implemented the Bang Nara Watershed Water Transmission and Maintenance Project. Under the project, it constructed rubber mound groins to prevent shoreline erosion. The Plaintiff claimed that the groin built adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land caused erosion to his land. He was aggrieved by the Defendant No.1’s construction so he filed a case with the Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Defendant No.1 accepted that the construction of rubble mound groins caused erosion to the Plaintiff’s property including a parcel of land and coconut trees. Thus, the Defendant No.1 committed a wrongful act against the Plaintiff pursuant to Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code. As a State agency who was responsible for the groin construction, the Defendant No.1 shall be liable to the Plaintiff who was injured by the act committed by its official in the course of his performance of duty, pursuant to Section 5 paragraph one of the Act on Liability for Wrongful Act of Officials, B.E. 2539 (1996). To compensate for the damage, the Defendant No.1 shall pay the Plaintiff in the amount of 2,224,000 Thai Baht with interest of 7.5 percent per year from the day the plaint is filed until the Defendant No.1 fully pays compensation, within 60 days from the day the judgment is delivered, the court fees shall be returned to the Plaintiff in proportion to the outcome of the case and other reliefs requested in the plaint shall be dismissed.
อ่าน 260
อ่านรายละเอียด
Wastewater Nuisance Caused by Pig Farming
The Plaintiff was an owner of a land adjacent to a pig farm. Eucalyptus trees planted in his land died because wastewater leaked from a sewage treatment pond through soil and overflew a ridge of soil into the Plaintiff’s land and pond. The Plaintiff made a complaint about the issue to the Defendant No.5 many times and requested the Defendants No.1 to No.5 to order the Defendant No.6 to resolve the nuisance. The Defendant No.6 solved the problem by making the soil ridge bigger to improve the sewage treatment system as instructed by the Defendant No.5 but the wastewater had been continuously leaking from the pig farm to the Plaintiff’s land. The Plaintiff then filed a case with the Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Defendants No.4 and No.5 had not performed their duties required by the law, pursuant to Section 9 paragraph one (2) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999). They did not exercise its power to resolve the issue by imposing a fine, suggesting a halt in operation, suspending or revoking a permit, or prohibiting the use or exploitation of the source of pollution under Sections 82 and 83 of the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act, B.E. 2535.
อ่าน 240
อ่านรายละเอียด
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.
อ่าน 428
อ่านรายละเอียด
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.
อ่าน 353
อ่านรายละเอียด
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
อ่าน 340
อ่านรายละเอียด

ข้อมูลทั้งหมด 98 รายการ
แสดงข้อมูล
รายการต่อหน้า
  • หน้า 1/10


เขตอำนาจศาลปกครองเขตอำนาจศาลปกครอง
ศาลปกครอง
สืบค้นข้อมูล
ประชาสัมพันธ์
บริการประชาชน