This commentary discusses environmental cases focused on standing and filing deadlines, indicating legal implications.
This commentary examines selected environmental cases decided by Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court between 2021 and 2024. It discusses noteworthy decisions related to admissibility requirements, in particular the issues of standing and filing deadlines, as well as relevant issues related to the merits of cases, such as environmental impact assessments (EIAs), proportionality between public interests and individual rights, the protection of legitimate expectations, and the continued relevance of post-coup laws. The commentary also contains a brief discussion of selected evidentiary matters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schuldt et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: