Interpreting the Timeframe for Filing Administrative Lawsuits under the Rule of Law : Problems and Doctrinal Proposals English Title
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65205/jhssrru.2026.e292120Keywords:
time limit for administrative litigation, Administrative Court, rule of law, administrative lawsuitAbstract
This article aims to analyze the legal criteria governing the time limit for filing administrative lawsuits under Section 49 of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999), through the framework of the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty, in conjunction with the concept of access to justice, which constitutes a fundamental pillar of a democratic state. The study employs documentary research, including a review of relevant literature, legal concepts, theories, and applicable laws, using descriptive content analysis as the primary method. The findings reveal that although the 90-day time limit calculated from the date on which the plaintiff knew or should have known the cause of action is intended to promote efficiency and legal certainty within the judicial process, in practice it adversely affects the rights of disadvantaged individuals to access justice, particularly those lacking resources, information, or legal knowledge. Furthermore, the interpretation of the term “should have known” remains ambiguous and subjective, leading to legal uncertainty, an increased risk of forfeiture of rights, and a decline in public trust in the Administrative Court. This article proposes a more flexible interpretation of the time-limit provisions, grounded in the principles of fairness and equality, in order to align more closely with the underlying objectives of the rule of law and to ensure genuine protection of the fundamental rights of the people.
Downloads
References
Administrative Court and Office of the Administrative Court. (2023). Announcement of the Administrative Court on the determination of timeframes for case proceedings in the Administrative Courts B.E. 2566 (2023). https://www.admincourt.go.th/admincourt/site/08 public_ detail.php?ids=23836.
Bannon, A., & Adelstein, J. (2020). The impact of video proceedings on fairness and access to justice in court. Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
Barak, A. (2005). Purposive interpretation in law. Princeton University Press.
Cappelletti, M., & Garth, B. G. (1978). Access to justice: the worldwide movement to make rights effective : a general report. AW Sijthoff.
Cornell Law School. (2020). Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/laches.
Dicey, A. V. (1959). Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed.). Macmillan.
Donphrai, P. (2020). Time limits for administrative litigation in Thailand : A study of problems concerning the admissibility of claims involving continuing torts (Master’s thesis, Sripatum University). Bangkok, Thailand.
Durkheim, E. (1994). The division of labor in society. In Social Stratification, Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, Second Edition (pp. 178-183). Routledge.
Dworkin, R. (1997). Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press.
Gormley, C., & Watson, N. (2021). Inaccessible justice: Exploring the barriers to justice and fairness for disabled people accused of a crime. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 60(4), 493-510. https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12433.
Haltom, W., & McCann, M. (2009). Distorting the law : Politics, media, and the litigation crisis. University of Chicago Press.
Ithisan, N. (2003). Judicial control of the legality of administrative regulations and the legal effects of annulled regulations by the Administrative Court (Master’s thesis, Thammasat University). Bangkok, Thailand. https://digital.library.tu.ac.th/tu_dc/frontend/ Info/item/dc:115019.
Khanarat, N. (2023). Case analysis : An action seeking revocation of a first-instance administrative order and an appellate decision (Supreme Administrative Court Judgment No. AorPhor 508/2021). Administrative Court Academic Journal, 23(2), 160–168. https://so09. tci-thaijo.org/index.php/admcJ/article/view/1003.
Kurunczi, G. (2025). The role of public participation and legal certainty in lawmaking in a special legal order–with particular reference to Central European practice. Frontiers in Political Science, 7, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1568066.
Lucy, W. (2020). Access to Justice and the Rule of Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40(2), 377-402. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/ gqaa012.
Malasukhum, W. (2023). The bridge to success of the Thai legal system in resolving administrative disputes arising from public–private partnership contracts in the judicial system: A legal content analysis. Thammasat Law Journal, 52(3), 509–639. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tulawjournal/article/view/264843.
OECD. (2020). Access to Justice and the COVID-19 Pandemic. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/ 09/access-to-justice-and-the-covid-19-pandemic_0ea1b2a3/09a621ad-en.pdf.
Office of the Administrative Court, Administrative Case Management Development Division. (2009). Summary of Supreme Administrative Court rulings for the year B.E. 2550 (2007) on issues concerning conditions for filing administrative lawsuits. Office of the Administrative Court.
Office of the Administrative Court. (2022). Administrative litigation manual for the public. Doodee Advertising. https://www.admincourt. go.th/admincourt/site/08doc _detail.php?ids=23754.
Office of the Constitutional Court. (1997). The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540 (1997). Office of the Constitutional Court. https://elibrary.constitutionalcourt.or.th/research/detail.php?ID=138.
Pathumanont, R. (2015). Principles for determining conditions in filing administrative lawsuits. Naresuan University Law Journal, 8(1), 7–26. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/ index.php/lawnujournal/article/download/98729/pdf_10.
Phitchaem Manjit, N., & Lertphaitoon, S. (2022). Rights of people and communities to bring actions against state agencies to enforce Section 51 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560 (2017) and Section 45 of the Organic Act on Procedures of the Constitutional Court B.E. 2561 (2018). Thammasat Law Journal, 51(3), 505–528. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/ index.php/tulawjournal/ article/ view/257605.
Phongachan, R. (2021). Legal status issues concerning announcements for recruitment into government service. Journal of the Ombudsman, 14(2), 113–142. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ombudsman/article/view/253700/173499.
Photisai, A. (2021). The right of the people to access justice. Chulanit, The Senate, 145–146. https://www.senate.go.th/assets/portals/93/ fileups/272/files/Sub_Jun/11all/all89.Pdf.
Samartkul, B. (2016). Administrative cases filed after the expiration of the statutory time limit due to other necessary reasons. Graduate Law Journal, Thammasat University, 9, 543–554. https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/gradlawtujournal/article/ download/147788/ 108799/.
Schwarze, J. (2012). European administrative law in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon. European public law, 18(2), 285-304. https://doi.org/ 10.54648/euro2012016.
Shcherbanyuk, O., Gordieiev, V., & Bzova, L. (2023). Legal nature of the principle of legal certainty as a component element of the rule of law. Juridical Tribune-Review of Comparative and International Law, 13(1), 21-31. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detailid =1222655.
Thuenchai, S. (2023). Obstacles faced by the public in accessing administrative justice. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Bansomdejchaopraya Rajabhat University, 17(1), 267–313. https://so08.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jhusocbru/article/view/1535.
Tridimas, T. (2006). The general principles of EU law. Oxford University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why do People Obey the Law. 33-41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220011500_Why_do_People_ Obey_the_Law .
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton university press.
United Nations Human Rights. (1990). Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/ instruments/basic-principles-role-lawyers.
UNODC. (2016). UNODC annual report covering activities during 2016. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. https://www.unodc. org/documents/AnnualReport2016 /2016_UNODC_Annual_Report.pdf.
