Bangkok: Administrative Court explains legal issues in Yingluck's lawsuit requesting revocation of order to pay compensation for rice pledging scheme
The Administrative Court has provided clarification on the legal issues involved in the red case filed by Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra and Mr. Anusorn Amornchat against the Prime Minister and nine other defendants. This case originated from the Ministry of Finance's Order No. 1351/2559, which mandated Ms. Yingluck to pay compensation amounting to 35,717,273,028.23 baht. This order is considered an administrative directive requiring payment. In instances where payment is not made, the Ministry of Finance and related agencies are authorized to enforce administrative measures, such as seizing or auctioning assets, without the need for a court lawsuit. This is in line with Section 12 of the Act on Liability for Torts of Officials B.E. 2539, Section 57 of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539, and Section 63/7 of the amended Act. The case became a legal matter when the order was challenged as unlawful, prompting a lawsuit in the Administrative Court seeking its revocation.
According to Thai News Agency, the court has limited authority in such matters, with the power only to revoke all or part of the contested order. It does not have the jurisdiction to command the plaintiff to pay compensation. In this instance, the Supreme Administrative Court found the order partially unlawful and decided to revoke the portion requiring Ms. Yingluck to pay compensation exceeding 10,028,861,880.83 baht. The court did not order Ms. Yingluck to compensate the nine defendants.
The Supreme Administrative Court's consideration of the case took place on September 12, 2023. All five judges involved had signed the draft judgment. Subsequently, the President of the Supreme Administrative Court directed the case to be reviewed by the general assembly of judges, which includes all current judges of the Supreme Administrative Court. Judges who had already retired could not participate in the assembly. The decision was based on a majority vote. When the final judgment was issued, two judges who had left government service were unable to sign it. The President of the Supreme Administrative Court noted in the judgment that these judges had valid reasons for not signing. The process adhered to Sections 68 and 69, paragraph two, of the Administrative Court Establishment Act and Administrative Litigation Procedure B.E. 2542.
Regarding dissenting opinions, judges of the Supreme Administrative Court in the general assembly are entitled to express dissent, as stipulated in Section 67 of the aforementioned Act. These dissenting opinions, along with the names of the judges, are included in the judgment.