Supreme Administrative Court The complaint against the National Anti-Corruption Commission was dismissed. Requesting to reveal new data for examining the “Big Pom” watch

Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court does not accept the NACC's complaint to consider the case ordering the opening of examination documents. New "Big Fortress Clock" points out that it is not within the criteria - not new evidence

The Supreme Administrative Court issued an order confirming the order of the Central Administrative Court. Do not accept requests from the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission or NACC and the NACC to consider the case of Mr. Weera Somkidkid, Chairman of the People's Network Against Corruption (Corruption Commission). T.) File a lawsuit against the office The NACC and the NACC request the release of documents from the investigation into the case of Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan, former deputy prime minister. Accused of intentionally submitting a false statement of assets and debts or concealing facts that should be known. In the case where it is not shown that there are wristwatches and various decorative rings, 3 items, according to the decision of the Social Branch Information Disclosure Committee. Public Administration and Law Enforcement No. Sor Kor 333/2019 New

After the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the NACC should open all 3 documents to Mr. Veera, but later, the NACC decided to open only 2 documents, namely item 1. Report and documents of the investigation and investigation. and preliminary investigation including all related documents Fact-seeking list and collect evidence All documents and 2. Document number 3, minutes of the meeting of the NACC committee regarding this matter. As for the second document, the opinions of all NACC officials responsible for the NACC resolved not to open it, citing that it would affect the performance of the duties of the NACC committee and inquiry officials. including third parties who provide information along with a resolution for the office NACC requests the Administrative Court to reconsider the case.

As for the Supreme Administrative Court's order to uphold the Central Administrative Court's order not to accept the NACC's request for a new trial, the reason was stated that The person who has suffered damage or may suffer unavoidable damage from actions or refraining from actions of administrative agencies or state officials according to Section 42, paragraph one, of the Administrative Court Establishment and Administrative Court Procedure Act, 1999, is considered a condition. one which shows that that person has the right to file a lawsuit in the Administrative Court The Administrative Court of First Instance has proceeded with the consideration of the matter at the complaint examination stage before issuing an order to accept the complaint for consideration. Even the issue of whether someone has the right to file a lawsuit or not It is a condition for filing administrative cases. It will be a legal problem related to public order. Even though the parties did not raise the issue at the appeal level. The Supreme Administrative Court shall have the power to make a decision in accordance with Section 92 and Section 116 of the Rules of the General Assembly of the Supreme Administrative Court. Regarding administrative court procedures, 1999

But in this case, there was no issue regarding Mr. Veera's right to file a lawsuit with the NACC, and the committee itself did not raise any objections in the proceedings of the Administrative Court of First Instance and the Supreme Administrative Court. In addition, Section 69, paragraph one, of the Act on the Establishment of the Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542, does not provide that the court's judgment or decision on a case must specify the person who is in distress or has suffered damage or may be in distress or Inevitably damaged, there will be no right to sue the plaintiff. In this case, the NACC Office and the Commission The NACC does not dispute Mr. Weera's status as the person with the right to file a lawsuit. Both in the proceedings of the Administrative Court of First Instance and the Supreme Administrative Court as mentioned above. The court therefore does not have to raise the decision and specify it in the judgment. In such cases, it cannot be considered that the court's judgment is incomplete according to Section 69 of the said Act. According to the committee NACC claims This will cause the court to hear incorrect facts or new evidence. This may cause the facts which have already been heard to be final to be changed in essence. or there is a significant flaw in the trial and adjudication process that causes the outcome of the case to be unfair according to Section 75, paragraph one (1) and (3) of the same Act.

As for the case at the office NACC and NACC It is claimed that the documents that Mr. Weera has requested to disclose are information that is prohibited from disclosure according to Section 36 of the 2019 Anti-Corruption Act and Section 15 (2) (3). and (4) the Official Information Act of 1997 and also cited evidence from the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment. Red Case No. A. 681/2017 and Red Case No. Or. 74/2021 without considering Red Case No. A. 681/2017, which has the same facts as this case. And the investigation of the NACC committee is an exercise of power according to the Constitution that has been specifically prescribed. and is an operation in accordance with the criminal justice process, it is considered that the claim in requesting a new trial is The Supreme Administrative Court in the red case number A. 224/2023 has already ruled. The case therefore is an argument against the use of discretion in listening to evidence. Consideration of facts and legal issues in court judgments only. Therefore, in such cases, it cannot be considered that there is a significant flaw in the trial and adjudication process that makes the outcome of the case unfair according to Section 75, paragraph one (3) of the Act Establishing the Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure 1999 as stated. So claimed Request for new hearing of the office NACC and NACC Therefore, it is not in the criteria that the court can accept and consider

Source: Thai News Agency