“Condominium” combines the Latin roots com (“together”) and dominium (“right of ownership or property”) into a word that literally means “shared property.” This shared ownership of property—which in the condominium’s case has come to mean a large building of residential units—has been enormously popular in Bangkok and other Thai cities, and regardless of the economic situation in Thailand, condominiums continue to be attractive to Thai people and foreign investors due to their favorable locations, pleasant common spaces, access to convenient methods of transportation, and reasonable prices. The land available for “low-rise” buildings—such as detached houses, townhouses, twin houses, or commercial constructions—is expected to become progressively scarcer in urban areas, with condominiums or “high-rise” residences eventually becoming the residence of choice. Despite its advantages, living in condominiums involves the coming together of the people owning or leasing the units, so various conflicts among the owners or with the condominium juristic person are bound to arise from time to time. As a continuation of a similar discussion of condominiums that we wrote a few years ago, this article aims to provide some clarity to these issues by identifying some key elements of the legal framework governing condominiums, considering some of the more common disputes that arise, and suggesting legally sound resolutions to those disputes. Legal basics The main law governing condominiums in Thailand is the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979), which establishes the following key definitions: Condominium. A building in which the ownership is divided into multiple parts consisting of individual personal properties and jointly owned common property. Personal property. A condominium unit, including constructions and land provided to each unit owner. Personal property can be divided into two main types: a “unit,” which refers to the parts of the condominium that are divided to be owned by different persons; and a developed or undeveloped piece

COVID-19 and the resulting lockdown measures to limit outbreaks in Thailand have caused significant financial difficulties for many business operators, large and small. Whether a business is a creditor or debtor, there is a high likelihood they have faced or will face a default caused by the pandemic. This article identifies three legal options available when a party defaults—civil cases, bankruptcy actions, and business rehabilitation actions—and compares key elements associated with each option. For context, those three options are defined as follows: Civil case. A legal proceeding in which a creditor files a civil lawsuit (or arbitration claim) against a debtor for debt collection. If a debtor fails to settle a debt in accordance with a judgment, the creditor can ask the court to enforce the judgment by seizure and sale of the debtor’s assets through public auction. Bankruptcy action. A legal proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act in which a government authority can collect a debtor’s assets, sell the assets by public auction, and distribute the net proceeds among creditors. In bankruptcy proceedings, the creditors will receive repayment in proportion to the size of the outstanding debts. Business rehabilitation action. A legal proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act aimed at helping a debtor recover from insolvency and continue its business. Debtors are given debt relief and a “new start” through business rehabilitation, while creditors are able to collect a higher percentage of outstanding debt under rehabilitation than they would under a bankruptcy action. In short, a civil case is a claim in court for repayment of a specific debt, a bankruptcy action results in distribution of the debtor’s assets among the creditors, and a business rehabilitation action aims to enable the debtor to stay in business while repaying their debts to some degree. A civil case may be appropriate when the debtor defaults on debt

Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have prepared the Thailand section of the Foreign Investment Restrictions Guide, published by Lex Mundi. The guide provides answers to key questions related to the regulatory regime for foreign investments in the jurisdictions of Lex Mundi member firms in 57 jurisdictions around the world. Each country-specific section contains in-depth information on the jurisdiction’s legal framework governing employment relationships, addressing the following questions and topics: General overview of the country’s foreign investment restrictions Sectors subject to investment restrictions Relevant thresholds, notification obligations, and approval requirements Grounds to block a foreign investment Information specific to COVID-19 and other relevant potential developments The guide draws on the expertise of Lex Mundi member firms from around the world. Its innovative format allows users to compare current information from multiple jurisdictions in a side-by-side customizable report. To browse the contributions, generate country-specific reports, and compare regulatory guidance on cross-border investment and transactional activity across multiple jurisdictions, please visit the Lex Mundi website.

A new regulation from Thailand’s Ministry of Interior grants a three-year extension for obtaining an alteration permit or a certificate to change the use of a hotel building. The eligibility period—which had been scheduled to expire on August 18, 2021—is now open until August 18, 2024. The extension was announced in the Government Gazette on August 6, 2021, after Ministerial Regulation Prescribing the Descriptions of Other Types of Buildings Which Can Be Used for a Hotel Business Operation (No. 3) B.E. 2564 (2021) was issued on August 2. The regulation, which is issued under the Building Control Act B.E. 2522 (1979), specifies which types of buildings can be used as “hotels providing accommodation only,” and which types can serve as “hotels providing accommodations and a restaurant, or a place for serving or cooking food.” This is the third such regulation, with previous versions being issued in 2016 and 2018 prescribing standards of the qualified buildings. The previous regulations set requirements for the following building features: The width of walkways in the building; The width and length of ladders; The maximum loading weight in all parts of the building; and The number of standard fire extinguishers installed on each floor. Moreover, the previous ministerial regulations stipulate that the building’s boundaries, height, space from other buildings, setback, and parking lots must comply with the building control regulations effective at the time of construction or alteration. These regulations also include requirements on additional fire alarm systems and emergency lighting system, as well as details on the fire escapes and ladders for buildings over a certain size. For more information on property and building regulations in Thailand, please contact Chaiwat Keratisuthisathorn at [email protected] or +66 2056 5507.

The process of registering pesticide products in Myanmar has been slowed significantly by regulatory challenges since the enactment of the Pesticide Law in 2016. In some cases, the whole process can take almost three years. Nonetheless, this stringent and time-consuming process has been functioning smoothly, and Tilleke & Gibbins has successfully received approvals from the Pesticide Registration Board (PRB) despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and state of emergency in the country. Overview Since its enactment, the Pesticide Law of 2016 has governed the regulation of local and imported pesticides under the oversight of the Plant Protection Division (PPD) and the joint secretary of the PRB. All foreign and domestic companies (including subsidiaries and joint ventures) looking to have their agricultural or household pest control products imported into Myanmar must first provide the products’ complete formulas and lists of active ingredients to the PPD, and apply for a pesticide registration certificate. Applications should be supported by a letter of consent from the manufacturer and various other technical documents and requirements. Experts at the PRB will review the technical dossier and inform the applicant if any re-submissions are required. Key Considerations One common cause of delay in the registration process is the requirement to submit both English and Myanmar translations of proposed labels to the PRB. Because the PRB takes a restrictive view of these labels and their translations, having the labels initially reviewed by a local regulatory expert familiar with the requirements will streamline the process by flagging potential issues for correction before submission to the PRB. After document submission is complete, the next stage of the process is further lab testing according to requirements set out by the Myanmar Pesticide Law. Applicants will need to supply the formulated product in an amount sufficient for carrying out supervised trials and quality control tests. There

The Ministry of Health of Vietnam recently issued Circular No. 10/2021/TT-BYT dated June 30, 2021, stipulating the list of substances prohibited from use in the production and trading of health supplements (“Circular 10”). Circular 10 will come into effect on September 1, 2021. Accordingly, substances found on the following lists will be prohibited from use in health supplements: The list of drugs and drug materials prohibited from importation and production found in Annex V of Decree No. 54/2017/ND-CP of the Government dated May 8, 2017, guiding the implementation of Law on Pharmacy (Decree 54). Lists promulgated with Decree No. 73/2018/ND-CP of the Government dated May 15, 2018, stipulating the list of narcotic substances and precursors, including: List I: Narcotic substances banned from use in healthcare and daily life, the use of which for analysis, testing, scientific research, and criminal investigation is subject to permission by competent authorities. List II: Narcotic substances restricted from analysis, testing, scientific research, criminal investigation, or healthcare as regulated by competent authorities. List III: Narcotic substances permitted in analysis, testing, scientific research, criminal investigation, healthcare, and veterinary medicine as regulated by competent authorities. List IVA: Essential precursors involved in forming the structure of narcotic substances. The list of narcotic active ingredients found in Annex I of Circular No. 20/2017/TT-BYT of the Ministry of Health, detailing articles of the Law on Pharmacy and Decree 54 related to drugs and drug materials under special control. The list of toxic drugs and toxic drug materials under Circular No. 06/2017/TT-BYT of the Ministry of Health dated May 3, 2017. Lists under Circular No. 42/2017/TT-BYT of the Ministry of Health dated November 13, 2017, stipulating the lists of toxic herbal materials, including: Annex I: List of toxic herbal materials of plant origin. Annex II: List of toxic herbal materials of animal origin. Annex III: List of toxic herbal materials of mineral origin. A list

In April 2021, the Vietnamese government made public a draft decree to amend Decree No. 43/2017/ND-CP of the Government dated April 14, 2017, on goods labeling (“Decree 43”), which is the primary legislation in Vietnam on the labeling requirements for domestically circulating goods and imported goods. Some noteworthy differences between the draft and the current Decree 43 include the following: 1. Original labels for imported products For imported goods, the draft adds a requirement on compulsory information for original labels, which is not mentioned in Decree 43. In particular, the original product label for goods being imported to circulate on the Vietnam market must contain the following compulsory information in a foreign language or in Vietnamese before customs clearance: Product name; Name and address of the entities responsible for the products; Product origin or place where the final production stage to complete the product was conducted. (If this information is not presented on the original product label, it must be included in the import documents accompanying the product.) 2. Vietnamese labels for imported products Under the draft, if it is impossible to determine the product origin under rules/guidance on determining product origin in Vietnam, it is acceptable to instead indicate on the product label the place(s) where the final production stage to complete the product was conducted. 3. Nutritional information for food Instead of being optional information as mentioned in Decree 43, “nutritional value” is compulsory information on labels for some food products under the draft. The Ministry of Health will have a roadmap for carrying out nutritional labeling and will provide appropriate guidance to manufacturers and importers, as well as issue regulations on types of food that are partially or entirely exempt from declaration of nutritional value. The draft has not yet been finalized and is subject to further revision; no expected date of issuance has been announced.

世界中で、新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）は何百万人もの人々の健康を脅かし、日常生活を妨げ、事業活動を停滞させ続けています。タイでは、パンデミックが始まって以来、今回の感染の波が最も激しく、多くの企業が再び閉鎖を余儀なくされています。しかし、希望はあります。その主な理由は、予防接種の増加ペースの速さです。ワクチンは深刻な健康問題を防ぐだけでなく、商業、貿易、観光を再開できるように、ビジネスにおいて従業員と顧客の両方を安全に保つのに役立っています。 タイでは多くの人が既に予防接種を受けており、苦境に立たされている使用者は、在宅勤務から職場での勤務を再開したり、顧客をCOVID-19にさらすリスクを最小限に抑える環境において歓迎するなど、安全かつ完全に事業活動を再開することを期待しています。 このような完全な事業の再開を期待し、多くのタイの使用者は、ワクチンなどの措置を義務付けることで職場でのCOVID-19の安全性を高めている海外の企業や組織に注目し、同様の義務をタイで課すことができるかどうかを知りたいと思っています。 タイにおいて検討すべき主な法的概念は、使用者が従業員に「合法的で公正な」命令を出すことを認める労働保護法B.E.2541（1998）の規定です。命令が「合法的で公正」であるためには、状況に釣り合ったものでなければなりません。COVID-19のパンデミックの現状では、使用者は、自社のリスクを軽減するための命令が、均衡がとれていて合法的で正当であると主張する根拠として、伝染病法B.E.2558（2015）やその他の現地の規制をあげることができます。 しかしながら、タイの裁判所が、現在の状況において、使用者が従業員にワクチン接種を義務付けることを正当と判断するかは疑問です。上記の法的基準は他の行為にも適用できますが、使用者は、現在の職場の状態及び他の状況の全ての側面をケースバイケースで考慮し、その命令が状況に釣り合ったもので合法的かつ公正であるかどうかを決定すべきです。COVID-19にさらされること又は伝染のリスクを最小限に抑えるために使用者が課す職場での義務が認められるかどうかを明確にするためには、いくつかの質問をしてみることが有益です。例えば以下が挙げられます: 使用者の想定（正しく取り扱われなければ悪影響を及ぼす可能性が高い実際のリスクの想定）を裏付けるようなハイリスクの状況を判断する政府の規制又は発表はあるか。 社員が新型コロナウイルスに感染していると信じる合理的な根拠はあるか。 問題の従業員が職場でウイルスを感染させる可能性は高いか。 リスクを取り除くことができる解決策は他にあるか（例えば、従業員に在宅勤務や隔離勤務をさせるなど）。 これらすべての関連する質問を熟慮した後、使用者は、特定の従業員に対して職場の安全衛生を守るよう命令することができ、従業員が正当な理由なくこれらに違反した場合、使用者はそれらの従業員の職場への立ち入りを禁止することができます。 前述したように、伝染病法はパンデミックとの闘いを支援する重要な法律の一つです。ある地域で危険な病気や感染性の病気が流行していると疑う合理的な理由がある場合、当局は感染者や高リスク者、接触者、保菌者に、予防接種を含む診察や治療を受けるよう要求することができます。また、当局は、これらを実施する者に指示するため、文書による命令を発することができます。 したがって、使用者は、伝染病管理官から、従業員にワクチン接種を要求する手続きを進めるよう命令される可能性があります。仮にこれが起こった場合、そのような命令は、使用者が従業員にワクチン接種を義務付けることを「合法かつ正当」とする裏付けとなります。なぜなら、使用者はそのような命令を遵守しなかった場合は罰則を科せられ、よって伝染病管理官の命令に基づく義務を果たすために従業員に対して懲戒処分を行うことが正当化されるからです。使用者また、事業所の区域内に実際にいるすべての者に対して予防接種を行うことが命じられた場合には、使用者は、従業員に対しても同様に予防接種を行うよう義務を課すことができます。 このような命令がない場合に従業員にワクチン接種を義務付けることは、従業員が「合法的で公正」ではないとしてその命令に異議を唱えることができ、問題となる可能性があります。この根拠は憲法そのものにあります。憲法第28条と第47条は、「何人も、その生命と身体において権利と自由を享有する」、「何人も、国が提供する公衆衛生サービスを受ける権利を有する」、「何人も、法律の定めるところにより、国が無償で有害な伝染病を保護し、根絶する権利を有する」と規定しています。しかしながら、憲法は自分の意志に反して予防接種を受ける義務を課してはいません。そのため、従業員に対しその意志に反して予防接種を強制することは、雇用主を訴訟や法的責任のリスクにさらすことになります。 もっとも、COVID-19の拡大を防ぐために、（許されないと思われる）ワクチンの義務化やその他の職場での命令の実行可能性に焦点を当てることは、使用者にとって最善のアプローチでないでしょう。結局のところ、もし100%の予防接種が最適なシナリオなら、これを達成するための最も現実的な方法は、全従業員が自発的に予防接種を受けることに同意してもらうことです。したがって、従業員との良好な関係－従業員のワクチンへのアクセスを容易にし、ワクチン接種を重要視すること―が、従業員の間で高いワクチン接種率を得るための最良の方法であると思われます。 さらに、使用者は、マスク、社会的距離の確保、手洗い、適切な換気、その他の衛生上の予防措置など、COVID-19感染の脅威を最小限に抑えるために、職場での標準的なCOVID-19安全対策の遵守を要請することができます。使用者は、対面又は物理的接触を最小化又は置換するためにテクノロジーの使用を強制することも可能であり、また、事業所及び顧客の接触領域につき、混雑を防止又は制限するため、再配置を行うことも可能です。 上記に述べた背景は、この問題に関するタイ法の立場についての一般的な指針を使用者に提供するものですが、使用者は、それぞれの状況に応じて専門家の助言を求めることが望ましいです。使用者は、柔軟で、従業員の士気や健康を支援し、病気の発生を予防する政策及び実務の実施を通じて、事業を着実に正常な状態に戻すことができます。   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。Workplace Reopening: Mandates and Other Safety Measures under Thai Law