THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AND REVIEWING THE REGULATIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY

Abstract

This research aims to study the meaning, characteristics, and types of regulations under Section 3 of the Administrative Court Act and Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2542 (1999), as well as to examine administrative court rulings both abroad and in Thailand regarding the principle of equality in administrative regulation, particularly the rulings of the Supreme Administrative Courts of the Republic of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Kingdom of Thailand. This is to understand the interpretation and application of the principle of equality in administrative law and to analyze the reasoning used by administrative judges in their decisions. The study also aims to differentiate between unfair discrimination and cases that do not constitute discrimination, and to consider whether administrative regulation issuance has reasonable grounds that cannot be challenged by the principle of equality. This is a qualitative research study utilizing documents from international law, foreign and Thai constitutions, and Supreme Administrative Court judgments from both countries. The research findings indicate that the principle of reasonableness allows for the issuance of different regulations only if: 1) They have a legitimate objective for the public interest; 2) The measures can realistically achieve that objective; and 3) They are necessary and proportionate. If any of these elements are missing, it immediately constitutes unfair discrimination, and individuals can invoke the principle of equality to challenge the legality of the regulation. This research, aimed at practical applications to enhance the rule of law in Thai society, has helped establish clear norms for classifying and defining the scope of “law” through comparisons with international legal models from France and Germany. This makes the principle of equality more concrete and verifiable.