Judgment No. 3509
1. The EPO shall pay the complainant 800 euros in moral damages.
2. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to send his mail to an address, which is not the declared residence address in his last retirement questionnaire.
"The complainant has applied for oral proceedings, but has given no justification for his application and, in fact, does not even mention it in his complaint brief. As the facts are fully documented and uncontested and the case turns on a question of law, the application for oral proceedings is rejected (see, for example, Judgment 3058, under 2)."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3058
"The unjustified delay of over three years between the filing of the appeal and the submission of the EPO’s position constitutes in itself an egregious delay which merits an award of damages. Taking into consideration both the excessive length of the delay and the fact that it is not apparent that this delay had a significant adverse impact on the complainant, the Tribunal sees fit to award moral damages in the amount of 800 euros (see Judgment 3160, under 17)."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160
moral injury; damages
"As the complainant succeeds in part, he would normally be entitled to costs. In the present case, the Tribunal considers the following issues with regard to costs: the complainant did not file a proper complaint brief detailing his grievance, instead referring only to his internal appeal; his complaint brief mainly discusses issues which have already been ruled upon by the Tribunal in several previous judgments; and the complaint contains unacceptable, offensive and unjustified statements against the EPO as a whole. In light of these matters, the Tribunal will not award him costs."
no award of costs
"The EPO requests, as a counterclaim, that the complainant be ordered to pay part of the costs that it has incurred in these proceedings on the grounds that his complaint constitutes an abuse of procedure. But the very fact that the complainant has succeeded in part is sufficient to demonstrate that the complaint was not abusive and that this claim must therefore be rejected (see Judgments 3423, under 17, 3424, under 16, and 3425, under 11)."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3423, 3424, 3425