Thailand’s Draft Climate Change Act Countries around the world have given significant attention to climate change legislation, with many national, regional, and global attempts to slow the momentum of climate change. The most notable of these multilateral efforts is the Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change currently adopted by 193 parties. Its goal is to limit the global average temperature to well below 2°C (preferably below 1.5°C) above preindustrial levels, and the treaty’s coordinated efforts to combat climate change are much more ambitious than previous global agreements and discussions. Article 4 of the Paris Agreement requires countries to provide “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), consisting of their action plans for climate action. Thailand, as a party to the Paris Agreement, has put forth an NDC that pledges to achieve an unconditional greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction target of 20% from the business-as-usual projection for 2030, with the possibility of increasing that target to 25% subject to adequate and enhanced access to technology development and transfer, financial resources, and other support. To enable the accomplishment of this pledge, Thailand is looking to enact climate change legislation that functions as a key mechanism for domestic climate action. In 2018, the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment was assigned to prepare a draft Climate Change Act. The draft is now complete, and according to news reports it is set to be submitted to the cabinet for further consideration. The draft Climate Change Act lays out Thailand’s action plan for climate change mitigation and adaptation, including emissions reductions. Some of the key sections in the draft law involve citizen rights, the National Climate Change Policy Committee, and a national GHG database. Rights of Citizens The draft establishes the rights of citizens regarding climate

On August 26, 2022, Thailand’s National Wage Committee voted to raise the minimum wage to THB 328–354 per day (USD 9.01–9.72)—an increase of approximately 5% from the previous range of THB 313–336. The decision to boost minimum wages, which were last increased in January 2020, came after a 14-year-high headline inflation rate of 7.61% in July 2022. The new minimum wages have been submitted to the cabinet for final approval and are expected to take effect on October 1, 2022, following publication in the Government Gazette. The exact minimum wage depends on the province in which the workplace is located, as shown in the table below. These minimum rates are for one working day, which consists of eight hours for normal work, or seven hours for work that may be harmful to the health and safety of the employee. Legal Requirements After the new minimum wages are announced in the Government Gazette, employers may not pay employees wages below the prescribed rates. Violations are punishable by imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to THB 100,000, or both. Regarding the question of whether employers can reduce the working hours in order to pay less than minimum wages (e.g., a prorated amount), based on past practice, the National Wage Committee’s announcement is expected to provide that a “day” refers to an employee’s normal working day, regardless of whether it is shorter than the “normal working hours” set by the employer under the Labor Protection Act. For example, an employee in Bangkok who earns the current minimum wage of THB 331 per day for normal working hours of eight hours a day would still be entitled to the full new rate of THB 353 per day in October 2022, even if the employer reduces the working hours. For further information on Thailand’s minimum wage regulations,

2022年8月26日、タイの賃金委員会は各県の一日当たりの最低賃金を328バーツ～354 バーツ の範囲に引き上げることを決議した。これは従来の313バーツ～336バーツに設定されていた各県の一日当たりの最低賃金レベルから約5%の引き上げとなる。2020年1月以来の今回の最低賃金額の引き上げは、2022年7月における7.61%という14年ぶりの高水準のインフレ率を受けて決定された。 新しい最低賃金額は2022年9月19日付けにて官報に掲載されており、2022年10月1日に発効した。最低賃金額は、以下の表に示すように、職場が所在する県によって異なる。 上記の最低賃金額は、通常の労働においては8時間、従業員の健康・安全に害を及ぼす可能性のある労働においては7時間からなる1日の労働時間に対して適用される。 新たな最低賃金が官報に告示された後は、使用者は所定の最低賃金額を下回る賃金を従業員に支払うことは仏歴2541年労働者保護法違反となる。違反した場合は、6ヶ月以下の懲役、10万 バーツ以下の罰金、またはその両方が科される。 使用者が労働者の労働時間を短縮して、最低賃金を下回る賃金を支払うことができるかどうかについては、賃金委員会の見解を踏まえると、これは難しいと考えられる。例えば、1日8時間の労働時間で1日331バーツの最低賃金を得ているバンコクの従業員は、たとえ使用者が労働者の労働時間を減らしたとしても、2022年10月時点では1日353バーツの賃金を受け取る権利がある。   備考：本和文は英文記事から作成しました。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。 New Minimum Wages in Thailand

Disputes are unavoidable in the business world—not only civil disputes between business partners but also criminal matters, in which a company or its representatives, or even an individual, are accused of legal or regulatory violations or other crimes. While this can be a daunting situation—especially for those facing a criminal matter in a jurisdiction with unfamiliar laws or litigation processes—knowing what to expect out of criminal proceedings can bring clarity and make the situation feel much more manageable. Thailand, for instance, is a vibrant economy in the heart of Southeast Asia that has attracted many businesses to pursue opportunities in the country. However, the relatively well-developed and sometimes unfamiliar regulatory regime in Thailand means that companies can unintentionally fall afoul of the legal requirements and find themselves having to defend against criminal litigation. In such a situation, understanding  how criminal proceedings work in Thailand  is critical step to  prepare for the case. Thailand’s legislative system is  based on a civil law system. Notably, however, Thai courts are still influenced by previous Supreme Court decisions as precedent references for adjudicating cases. Most criminal offenses are contained in the Penal Code (also called the Criminal Code). There are also other offenses prescribed in the country’s acts (of which there are approximately 1,000), which specify the obligations and prohibitions people must observe. Although most offenses are misdemeanors, many are nonetheless punishable by imprisonment—a dire prospect for anyone, and even more so for an accused party whose home country is not Thailand. By its nature as a juristic person, a company charged with a criminal offense is subject only to fines. However, company directors or other representatives are often accused as codefendants along with the juristic person itself. These individuals can be found guilty for the offense conducted by the juristic person if the accuser (i.e.,

Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has extended its previously announced period for reduction of import duty on imported raw and essential materials for battery manufacturing for electric vehicles and other applications. The BOI’s announcement No. 5/2565 dated August 8, 2022, extended the reduction period to a maximum of five years. The BOI’s promoted activities list includes two battery-manufacturing business activities: Activity 4.8.3.1 – Battery manufacturing Activity 5.2.6.1 – High energy density battery manufacturing Qualifying battery manufacturers who have cell or module manufacturing processes are eligible for 90% import duty reductions on raw and essential materials that cannot be produced in Thailand. These reductions will be available on an annual basis, and are renewable for five years in total—up from the original two years. Existing projects (i.e., those which have the original two-year duration in their BOI certificate) can also benefit from the extension by preparing a project amendment form, along with a clarification letter and supporting documents, for submission to the BOI office. For more details on these customs duty reductions, or on any aspect of investment promotion in Thailand, please contact Charuwan Charoonchitsathian at [email protected] or +66 2056 5657, or Napassorn Lertussavavivat at [email protected] or +66 2056 5662.

On July 27, 2022, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Newsletter No. 8/2022 to effectively ban foreign companies and foreign joint ventures from exporting value-added beans, corn, and sesame. This newsletter repealed Newsletter No. 2/2020, which had prescribed the criteria for beans, corn, and sesame to be considered “value-added” crops. These criteria had to be fulfilled in order for these commodities to be exported in accordance with Notification No. 24/2019, which had permitted foreign companies and foreign joint ventures to purchase seven categories of commodities from local manufacturers for export, subject to certain terms and conditions. These include: Meat and fish; Value-added crops; Pulp and paper; Seeds; Refined metals; Semi-finished or finished valued-added fruit products; and Timber-based furniture. With the repeal of the conditions in Newsletter No. 2/2020, foreign exporters are left with no reference criteria for how to achieve “value-added” status for beans, corn, and sesame, and thus will not be able to submit a complete application for the necessary export license. However, exportation of the other items in the list above remains unaffected and open to foreign exporters who meet the applicable requirements. The MOC explained their decision to revoke the permitted criteria by noting that some foreign companies were not actually producing beans, corn, and sesame that fulfilled the criteria for value-added status as laid out in Newsletter No. 2/2020, but were falsely exporting their goods as “value-added crops.” The revocation of the export criteria for beans, corn, and sesame took immediate effect. For more details on these export restrictions, or on any aspect of importation and exportation regulations in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

補償条項は、タイを含む多くの法域において一般的な契約条項ですが、タイ法の観点からは、その強制執行は困難な場合があります。 一般的に、「補償する」とは、潜在的なリスクや損失について他方当事者に責任を負わせないようにすることを意味します。一方の当事者（「補償者」）が他方の当事者（「被補償者」）に補償するという場合、補償者は、（契約で合意された範囲内で）被補償者に債務または損害を支払い、補償する義務を負います。このように、補償条項は潜在的なリスクに対する責任を当事者間でシフトするための有用な規定となります。 一部の法域では、「補償」には、被補償者が負担した弁護士費用も含まれると解されています。これには、被補償者に対して提起された請求を防御する義務または防御するための資金提供の義務を伴う場合もあります。そのような法域の場合は、契約書に明確に記載されていなくても、補償者は、弁護士を雇って被補償者のための弁護士費用を支払わなければなりません。 補償条項を含む契約では、補償に上記のような防御義務を含めることが通常です。事例を用いてこの点を説明いたします。例えば、小売業者が、機械の供給者（サプライヤー）から機械を購入する場合、サプライヤーは、その機械に欠陥が生じた場合に小売業者の顧客からのクレームに対して小売業者を補償し、防御することに同意するとします。実際に機械に欠陥が生じた場合には、サプライヤーは、契約法又は過失に基づいて小売業者が被る損害を支払う義務に加え、小売業者の顧客が訴訟を起こした場合、サプライヤーは小売業者を防御するための弁護士費用も支払わなければなりません。 しかしながら、タイでは、この種の補償条項は強制できない可能性があります。多くの法域における契約法とは異なり、タイの契約法には「契約上の補償」について明記されていません。タイでは一般的に、「補償（Indemnity）」とは民商法典第222条に基づく「補償（Compensation）」を意味すると理解されています（最高裁判所判決7943/2542も同旨）。民商法典は、損害賠償請求は契約の不履行に起因して「通常」発生するすべての損害を含むと規定し、さらに「特別な事情により発生した損害で、当事者が当該状況を予見していた又 は当然予見すべきであった場合」にも、請求者は損害賠償を求めることが認められると規定します。 民商法典の222条の「補償」には通常補償と特別（結果的）補償の2種類があります。通常の補償は、合理的に予想される「直接的」損害に対するものです。これには、機会、便益、収入、利益の損失が含まれる場合もあります。例えば、前述のシナリオを使用すると、小売業者は欠陥のある機械を供給したサプライヤーに対して、機械の修理費用や修理の間のリース料を含む直接損害を請求して訴えることができます。 特別補償とは、原告が既に被告に危険性を知らせていたか、契約違反の前に被告が損害を予見すべきであったために、被告が予見可能と考えられる「間接的」損害に対する補償をいいます。同じ事例に戻りますと、もし小売業者が顧客に対し、機械を期限までに引き渡せなかった場合に違約金を支払うことに同意していた場合、その違約金は「間接的」又は「特別」損害とみなされます。サプライヤーは、当該機械の売買が行われた時点で小売業者と顧客間の当該違約金に関する合意を認識していた場合にのみ、これらの間接的損害を補償する責任を負います。 ここで１つ問題になるのは、サプライヤーと小売業者との間の契約に、サプライヤーは顧客のクレームに対して小売業者を補償し、防御することに同意すると書かれている場合、サプライヤーが小売業者を防御するための弁護士を雇用しなかったとき、小売業者は自分が負担した弁護士の費用を請求できるかということです。 タイの法典には契約上の補償に関する記載がないため、指針として関連する最高裁判所の決定を参照する必要があります。1998年の最高裁決定4023/2541において、最高裁は、被告の債務不履行があった場合に、原告が負担した弁護士費用を被告に支払わせる契約条項の有効性を検討しました。最高裁は、この契約条項は、裁判所が敗訴者に対して、弁護士費用の勝訴者への支払いを命じるかについての裁量権を有するとした民事訴訟法に反し、公序良俗に反するとして、無効と判断しました。 しかしながら、逆に、2005年には、最高裁判所は、契約書に明記された弁護士費用は、民商法典の第222条第1段落に基づく通常補償として請求しうる直接損害であると判断しました（決定6288/2548）。 これが新しい指針と思われたところ、さらにその後の2008年の最高裁決定（決定2147/2551）においては、2005年の決定と矛盾するように思える決定が出され、債務不履行当事者の弁護士費用を支払う契約上の義務は、いかなる法律に基づくものでもなく、弁護士費用は民商法典第222条に基づく直接損害でも特別損害でもないと判示されました。 これらのいくつかの異なる最高裁の決定によれば、弁護士費用をカバーする補償義務に関して、タイの裁判所が将来どのような判決を下すかは明らかでありません。したがって、当事者は、かかる契約条項に関して争いが生じた場合、具体的にどのように解決すべきかを決定する必要があります。しかし、今後この問題をめぐってさらなる紛争や事件が起これば、最高裁はこの論点を再検討することになると思われますので、裁判所が、世界中で補償条項の交渉を行うことがいかに一般的か認識することを期待したいと思います。   備考：本和文は英文記事を翻訳したものです。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。 Enforcing Indemnification Clauses in Thailand

Indemnification clauses are common contractual provisions in many jurisdictions including Thailand, but enforcing them can be challenging in the eyes of Thai law. In general, to “indemnify” means to hold another party free of responsibility for a potential risk or loss. When one party (i.e., the “indemnitor”) indemnifies another party (i.e., the “indemnitee”), the indemnitor is obligated to pay or compensate the indemnitee for any liabilities or losses (within the scope agreed in the contract). In this way, an indemnification clause can be a useful provision to shift responsibility for potential risks from one party to another. In some jurisdictions, “indemnity” includes the recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred by the indemnitee. It may even carry with it the duty to defend or fund the defense of any claim brought against the indemnitee. If that is the case, even though the contract does not say so, the indemnitor would have to hire an attorney and pay the legal fees for the indemnitee. In contracts that contain an indemnification clause, the indemnity would typically include the duty to defend. Let’s use a case example to elaborate this point. In this hypothetical case, a supplier of machinery agrees to indemnify and defend a retailer against claims from the retailer’s customer in the event that a purchased machine becomes defective. As a result, besides being responsible for the damages that the retailer may suffer based on contract law or negligence, the supplier must also pay for the lawyers to defend the retailer if the customer decides to sue. In Thailand, this kind of indemnification clause may not be enforceable. Unlike contract rules in many jurisdictions, Thai contract law is silent on “contractual indemnity.” It is commonly understood in Thailand (and confirmed by Supreme Court decision 7943/2542) that “indemnity” means “compensation” under section 222 of the Civil and