{"id":946,"date":"2025-02-19T14:27:39","date_gmt":"2025-02-19T07:27:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/administrative-enforcement\/"},"modified":"2025-11-04T22:51:33","modified_gmt":"2025-11-04T15:51:33","slug":"administrative-enforcement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/en\/administrative-enforcement\/","title":{"rendered":"Administrative enforcement"},"content":{"rendered":"

“Administrative actions themselves can be subject to judicial review, in accordance with the principle of exercising sovereignty. When administrative enforcement is a measure of the administration to ensure administrative orders achieve their intended purpose as prescribed by law, in principle, it should also be subject to judicial review and control.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996), Sections 55-63, provides that officials issuing administrative orders have the authority to use administrative enforcement measures to ensure compliance with their administrative orders, with minimal impact on those subject to the administrative orders. It allows government officials to enforce compliance with their administrative orders themselves. If government officials wish to carry out administrative enforcement, they must act in accordance with the principles and procedures prescribed in the said Act.<\/p>\n

Administrative enforcement under the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996) refers to measures that administrative agencies or government officials take to enforce compliance with administrative orders. Therefore, the purpose of administrative enforcement is to ensure that administrative orders achieve their intended purpose as prescribed by law. In principle, administrative orders do not necessarily require administrative enforcement, as some types of administrative orders do not require enforcement, such as the issuance of licenses or certificates, etc., or cases where the recipient of an administrative order or those subject to the administrative order have already complied with the administrative order, thus administrative enforcement is no longer necessary. In other words, administrative enforcement is used only in cases where there is a violation or non-compliance with the conditions in the administrative order, such as non-compliance with the administrative order, omission of acts that a person is required to perform by law, or incomplete or incorrect payment, etc. Such conditions must require the recipient of the administrative order or those subject to the administrative order to perform or refrain from performing any act, or enforcement in the form of revocation of rights under law that the administrative agency or government official has issued an administrative order for. If such orders do not have administrative enforcement measures, the orders of the executive branch would have no binding effect and would not create sanctity in the order. Therefore, administrative enforcement measures must be established to make such orders effective.<\/p>\n

In considering whether any administrative order has such enforcement conditions, it must be considered according to the law that grants the authority to issue such orders. If not specifically prescribed, it must be considered from the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996), which generally prescribes administrative orders and administrative enforcement. Administrative enforcement under the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996) is not limited to property enforcement alone, as can be seen in Sections 57, 58, and 61. For administrative orders requiring payment under Section 57 and non-payment of administrative fines under Section 61, the administrative enforcement measure is seizure or attachment and auction of property to fully collect payment. For administrative orders requiring performance or omission under Section 58, administrative enforcement will be allowing government officials to carry out the action or assigning others to perform on behalf, collecting expenses and additional fees from those subject to the administrative order, or requiring payment of administrative fines. Administrative actions by administrative agencies or government officials regarding administrative enforcement are considered administrative actions, which in some cases may be physical actions, such as demolition, seizure, or attachment, etc., or in cases where urgent enforcement is necessary to prevent acts that violate criminal law or to prevent damage to public interests, officials may use administrative enforcement measures without first issuing an administrative order. However, before using such administrative enforcement measures, officials must have a written warning to those subject to the administrative order to pay within a specified period, but not less than 7 days, or must have a written warning to those subject to the administrative order to perform or refrain from performing according to the administrative order within a reasonable period as appropriate. Such warnings must include details as prescribed by law, such as specifying the administrative enforcement measures to be used, expenses for officials to act on behalf, or the amount of administrative fines, etc., as the case may be.<\/p>\n

Therefore, it can be seen that the administrative enforcement process is not necessarily a process that must go through court proceedings, but rather has the authority to take various actions that may affect the rights of private parties or government officials themselves.<\/strong> However, administrative actions themselves can be subject to judicial review, in accordance with the principle of exercising sovereignty. When administrative enforcement is a measure of the administration to ensure administrative orders achieve their intended purpose as prescribed by law, in principle, it should also be subject to judicial review and control.<\/p>\n

However, in the process of using administrative enforcement measures by seizure or attachment of property for auction, there are other relevant laws besides the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996), namely the Civil Procedure Code and the Civil and Commercial Code, which prescribe procedures allowing the true owner of the property to file objections. Even though administrative seizure or attachment in this case does not go through court proceedings, Section 57 of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996) provides that “methods of seizure, attachment, and auction of property shall be carried out in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code by analogy.” Therefore, a practical problem arises as to how much of civil procedure can be applied to administrative enforcement. In the legal sense, the term “by analogy” means as far as can be applied according to the nature of the matter. Therefore, when there are disputed issues in the seizure and attachment stage between the administration and the true owner of the property, the parties may submit the case to the Administrative Court to request the court to issue an order.<\/p>\n

In addition to the seizure and attachment cases mentioned above, there is another issue worth considering: whether objections to property can be filed in administrative enforcement, and if objections to property cannot be used in administrative enforcement, what can interested third parties do? At present, there is no clear guidance on the practice in this matter. On this matter, the author is of the opinion that since Section 62 of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996) also provides that “persons subject to administrative enforcement measures may appeal such administrative enforcement,” the term “persons subject to administrative enforcement measures” has a broader meaning than “persons subject to administrative orders.” Therefore, in the case of the true owner of the property, even if they are not directly “persons subject to administrative orders,” they may be able to use the appeal process under the said section to protect their rights, similar to filing an objection to property.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Administrative actions themselves can be subject to judicial review, in accordance with the principle of exercising sovereignty.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":811,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-946","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-article"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/946","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=946"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/946\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/811"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kanung-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}