Problem of Liability for a Wrongful Act of the Officials: The Study and Analysis of the Separation of Liability for a Wrongful Act in the Case of Performance of Duties and Non-performance of Duties

Authors

  • Tripecth Jitmahuema Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Master of Laws Program, Sripatum University (SPU), Bangkok
  • Patcha Jitmahuema Director Administrative, Law Case and Analysis Section, Administrative Law Division, Office of the Council of State
  • Natthaphon Anchan Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Nakhon Phanom University (MPU), Nakhon Phanom Province

Keywords:

liability for a wrongful act, state officials, state agency, separation of liability for a wrongful act of the officials, performance of duty, in the case of non – performance of duty

Abstract

                This research aims at the issue of separation and consideration of liability for a wrongful act related to the case of performance and non - performance of duties. When considering the Act of Liability for a Wrongful Act of the Officials B.E. 2539 (1996) Section 5 and Section 6, it is found that these provisions dividas  the liabilities into two cases: 1) liability from the performance of duties, under Section 5 paragraph one, provides that the State agency shall be liable to the injured person in the consequences of delict that its officials have done in performing the duties. In this case, the injured person may directly sue the State agency that is liable. However, he/she may not sue the officials; 2) personal liability of the officials, under Section 6, if liability for a wrongful act of the officials is not an act in the performance of duties, the officials shall be solely liable. In this case, the injured person may sue the officials directly but he/she may not sue the State agency. Considering the two provisions as above-mentioned, it is found that in the end of Section 5, paragraph one, which provides the injured person to sue the State agency directly liable but he/she may not sue the officials and the end of Section 6 that provides the injured person to sue the officials directly but may not sue the State agency. The legislation to prohibit the prohibiting prosecution in this way may limit the rights to file a lawsuit of the injured person. Such provisions make the injured person unable to access the justice process and take quick remedies. If the injured person sues the officials or the State agency that does not comply with the conditions of the said provisions, the court may dismiss the case and it may have an effect on the delayed remedies for the injured person that has to file a lawsuit correctly.

                When studying and comparing the principles of liability for a wrongful act in the Republic of France, it is found that French law developed the concept by separating the liability between the officials and State agencies. It separates the personal liability of the officials from the liability of the State agency. By separating the liability for a wrongful act that is based on the consideration of the fault caused by actions of the officials and State agency. It divides the faults into three types which are 1) the personal fault of the officials, 2) the fault from performing of the service, and 3) the combination of fault. The division of faults, especially in the case of a combination of fault, is a result of State agency being jointly liable with the officials. This is to increase the way of remedy for the injured, which is better than the division of liability under Thai law that is divided only in the case of liability of the State agencies and the officials.

                From the problem of filing a lawsuit under Section 5, paragraph one and Section 6 as the above-mentioned, when studying the comparison with the principle of French law in the case of Liability for a Wrongful Act of the Officials. It should amend the provisions at the end of Section 5, paragraph one, and the end of Section 6 by abolishing at the ends of both sections and amending the authority of the court to transfer the case to the court that has the jurisdiction to consider. However, it may amend the Act of Liability for a Wrongful Act of the Officials B.E. 2539 (1996), to Impose the provisions being jointly liable between State agency and the officials which may take the concept of combination of fault under French law to improve, develop and amend it to be appropriate and consistent with the purposes of the law of liability for a wrongful act of the officials. If there is an amendment to the provisions on the above issues according to the suggestion of this research, it may increase the remedy of damage to the injured person in the case of liability for a wrongful act of the officials, which is a law that has rules to protect and increase the rights of the injured person. It shall make justice to the injured person better and faster. It also creates a balance in liability between the officials and State agency that made both parties aware of the duties of public services and the administrative activities as well as the exercise of administrative power which must to careful not to damage the people. In addition, it will result in fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness for State operations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

จิ๊ด เศรษฐบุตร. (2550). หลักกฎหมายแพ่งลักษณะละเมิด (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 6). กรุงเทพฯ: โรงพิมพ์เดือนตุลา.

จิตติ ติงศภัทิย์. (2523). คำอธิบายประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์ บรรพ 2 มาตรา 354 ถึง มาตรา 452 (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 4 (แก้ไขเพิ่มเติม)). กรุงเทพฯ: โรงพิมพ์มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์.

ชาญชัย แสวงศักดิ์. (2554). คำอธิบายกฎหมายเกี่ยวกับความรับผิดทางละเมิดของเจ้าหน้าที่และความรับผิดชอบของรัฐโดยปราศจากความผิด (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 7). กรุงเทพฯ: วิญญูชน.

พลประสิทธิ์ ฤทธิ์รักษา. (2539). คำอธิบายหลักกฎหมายพระราชบัญญัติความรับผิดทางละเมิดของเจ้าหน้าที่ พ.ศ. 2539. กรุงเทพฯ: วิญญูชน.

เพ็ง เพ็งนิติ. (2545). คำอธิบายประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์ว่าด้วยละเมิด ความรับผิดทางละเมิดของเจ้าหน้าที่ และกฎหมายอื่นที่เกี่ยวเนื่อง (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 2 (แก้ไขเพิ่มเติม)). กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักอบรมศึกษากฎหมายแห่งเนติบัณฑิตยสภา.

สมยศ เชื้อไทย. (2553). ความรู้กฎหมายทั่วไป คำอธิบาย วิชากฎหมายแพ่ง: หลักทั่วไป (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 16 (แก้ไขเพิ่มเติม)). กรุงเทพฯ: วิญญูชน.

สายสุดา นิงสานนท์. (2525). ความรับผิดเด็ดขาดในกฎหมายลักษณะละเมิด (วิทยานิติศาสตรมหาบัณฑิต). จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย, กรุงเทพฯ.

สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา. (2540). สาระสำคัญของกฎหมายวิธีปฏิบัติราชการทางปกครองและความรับผิดทางละเมิดของเจ้าหน้าที่. กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักงานคณะกรรมการ กฤษฎีกา.

สุษม ศุภนิตย์. (2543). คำอธิบายประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์ว่าด้วยลักษณะละเมิด (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 3 (แก้ไขเพิ่มเติม)). กรุงเทพฯ: นิติบรรณการ.

Georges Dupuis, Marie-José Guédon et Patrice Chrétien. (2007). Droit administratif. 7e édition. Paris: Armand Colin. Coll. «U. Droit».

Marie-Christine Rouault. (2007). Droit administratif: sources et principes généraux, l’organisation administrative, l’activité administrative, le contrôle de l’administration (4e édition). Paris: Gualino. DL. Coll.

Serrand, P. (2015). Droit administratif, Tome I, Les actions administratives. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Coll. «Droit administratif».

Published

2021-07-20

Issue

Section

Research article