1 - testo originale giuntoci in inglese da: wmf@wmfonline.org

Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:29 AM

Synopsis in English of the Judgement of The Highest Administrative Court of Thailand.

The Concluding Part of the order of The Highest Administrative Court, Thailand

The Petitioner: The Amateur Muaythai Association of Thailand(AMAT)

The Respondent: The Sports Authority of Thailand(SAT)

The Case: The SAT had issued an order on 11th August 2005, revoking the license number 011/2533 dated 7th September 1990 and the license number 001/2539, dated 26th April 1996 of the AMAT.

Appeal: The appeal was made by AMAT to the Highest Administrative Court in Thailand, against the revoking of the licences of AMAT by the SAT.

Date of Hearing: 26th October 2005 at 0930 hours.

Place of Hearing: Room No: 2, Floor 21, Central Administrative Court, Bangkok, Thailand.

Summary:

1. The AMAT had held the 1st main conference on 24/07/2004 and submitted written report to SAT vide document number 272/2004.

2. The SAT informed the AMAT that the said alterations of the Associations rules and regulations should be registered with the Bangkok Metropolitan Registrar.

3. The alterations were duly registered with Bangkok Metropolitan Registrar on 3rd September 2004.

4. After the registration was completed as per the requirements of SAT, the SAT suddenly asked the AMAT to revise the alterations vide letter number Kaw Kaw 5107/ 7283 dated 7th December 2004 stating that the alterations did not follow the resolution of the Main Conference.

5. The AMAT confirmed that all the alterations were made by adhering to the resolutions of the Main Conference and asked the SAT to send its official delegates to participate in the Conference called for this purpose and ascertain that all alterations were as per the resolutions and to discuss the issues with the Committee to reach an amicable solution to all the problems.

6. The SAT did not send any official delegates for this purpose

7. Then without any further discussions the SAT issued a notice to AMAT vide letter number 5107/1014 dated 17th February 2005.

8. The notice was for revoking the licenses issued to the AMAT bearing numbers 011/2533 dated 7th September 1990 and 1001/2539 dated 26th April 1996.

9. Immediately after this, on 21st February 2005, the SAT issued the permission to the Committee of another Muay Thai Association to establish and also granted them a licence with the phrase ‘of Thailand’ added to the name of the association. Thus the name of the other association licensed by SAT also has the same name of the Petitioner. As soon as the licence was issued by the SAT, the other association registered itself with the Bangkok Metropolitan Registrar, with the records showing Mr. Sakchay Tapsuwan as the President.

10. The Highest Administrative Court of Thailand ruled that such an action as shown above by the SAT is likely to be illegal.

11. The Court observed that as a result of this the AMAT could not send athletes to participate in competitions nor conduct any international amateur Muaythai competitions by the short period of time given by the SAT.

12. The Court also observed that this action caused serious damages to the AMAT which were very difficult to remedy at a later date.

13. The SAT argued that if the Court suspended the revoking of the licences in favour of the AMAT, then there will be two redundant associations which will cause administrative problems to the SAT.

14. The Court observed that such problems have been created by the SAT itself by allowing Mr. Sakchaey Tapsuwan to establish a second Amateur Muaythai Association during the period of appeal against the revoking of the original licences.

15. The Court decided that the establishment of the second association was done in haste and hence the claim of the SAT that the existence of the two redundant associations is causing administrative problems cannot be made as a logical argument against the order of the Central Administrative Court, suspending the SAT’s revoking of the licences of the AMAT.

16. Thus, the above claim of the SAT cannot be taken into consideration.

17. The Court also ruled that the suspension of the revoking of the licences of AMAT by SAT does not cause any problems in the administrative work of the SAT or any other public services.

18. The Court observed that the situation of the existence of two Amateur Muaythai Associations also does not interfere with the administrative management of the SAT to promote and control the activities of the Sports Associations in accordance with the Sports Act of Thailand(1985)

19. Thus the Central Administrative Court upheld the appeal of the AMAT thereby suspending the revoking of the licences by SAT. The Court ruled that this logical and right judgement be kept and put into practice.

The above Judgement was given in the presence of the following.

1. Mr. Wichai Chuenchampoonute
       Judge of the Highest Administrative Court

2. Mr. Perapol Chaisiri
       Chairman of the Jury of the Highest Administrative Court

3. Mr. Thongchai Lumdabwong
       Judge of the Highest Administrative Court

4. Mr. Hasawut Withiwriyakul
       Judge of the Highest Administrative Court

5. Mr. Sanchai Sawangsak
       Judge of the Highest Administrative Court