|
|
 |
|
|
Punitive damages (644,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Punitive damages
Total judgments found: 15
Judgment 4659
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[D]espite the conspicuous nature of some of the defects identified, there are no grounds to accept the complainant’s claim for exemplary or punitive damages. An award of such damages is only warranted in exceptional circumstances, which are not evident in this case.
Keywords:
exemplary damages; punitive damages;
Judgment 4658
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension with pay during disciplinary proceedings against him.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[D]espite the conspicuous nature of some of the defects identified, there are no grounds to accept the complainant’s claim for exemplary or punitive damages. An award of such damages is only warranted in exceptional circumstances, which are not evident in this case.
Keywords:
exemplary damages; punitive damages;
Judgment 4640
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a series of management acts regarding his administrative status.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant’s request for an award of punitive damages […] is […] rejected as he provides no evidence to prove that by the actions and/or omissions he complains of the EPO intended to cause him harm or that there was bias, ill will, malice, bad faith or other improper purpose on which to base such an award (see, for example, Judgments 4493, consideration 11, and 4484, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4484, 4493
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 4506
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the length of the extension of appointment that was offered to him.
Consideration 10
Extract:
As to the claim regarding punitive and exemplary damages, the complainant has provided no evidence or analysis to demonstrate that there was bias, ill will, malice, bad faith or other improper purpose on which to base an award of exemplary damages (see, for example, Judgments 3419, consideration 8, and 4286, consideration 19). The claim is therefore unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419, 4286
Keywords:
exemplary damages; punitive damages;
Judgment 4493
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award him moral damages for the length of the internal appeal procedure.
Consideration 11
Extract:
With regard to the complainant’s request for punitive damages, the Tribunal notes that the purpose of punitive damages is not compensation. They are awarded as a punishment and deterrent. It is not the unlawful act itself that will result in such an award, but rather the intention to harm that accompanies it. The complainant alleges that the Organisation intentionally delayed the procedure by raising an objection of conflict of interest in regard to the Chair of the Internal Appeals Committee, two days before the date of the hearing scheduled on 30 November 2012. It must be noted that the objection was not frivolous since the Chair withdrew from the case. Thus, the alleged bad faith and intentional delaying tactics on the part of the Organisation is purely speculative and unsubstantiated.
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 4484
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions to reject their claim for reimbursement of deductions made as from December 2015 to a compensatory allowance following their career progression and the ensuing increase in their salary.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants provide no evidence or analysis to demonstrate that there was bias, ill will, malice, bad faith or other improper purpose on which to base an award of exemplary damages (see, for example, Judgment 4286, consideration 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4286
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 4422
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainants’ claims for what in effect amounts to punitive or exemplary damages are unfounded as they provide no evidence to prove their entitlement thereto (see, for example, Judgments 3092, consideration 16, and 3966, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3092, 3966
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 4391
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated, in Judgment 3966, under 11, for example, that an award of punitive damages can be made only in exceptional circumstances, for instance where an organisation’s conduct has been in gross breach of its obligation to act in good faith.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3966
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 4385
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge a general decision concerning tax adjustment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainants are entitled to compensation for the violation of the President’s obligation to consult the GAC. The Tribunal sets the compensation at 2,500 euros each for moral and punitive damages stemming from this violation.
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 4261
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of a decision to assign her additional duties on a temporary basis.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant also sought punitive damages for the delay in the internal appeal process. On no basis would punitive damages be awarded.
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 4231
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment and to place him on special leave with pay until his contract expired.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s claim for punitive damages is irreceivable in the Tribunal as it was not raised in the internal appeal.
Keywords:
new claim; punitive damages;
Judgment 3966
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the behaviour of his director which he characterises as harassment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for an award of punitive damages for the delay will be dismissed. The Tribunal has stated, for example in Judgment 2935, consideration 5, that an award of punitive damages can be made only in exceptional circumstances, for instance where an organisation’s conduct has been in gross breach of its obligation to act in good faith. There is no evidence that the EPO acted in bad faith with respect to the delay in the internal appeal proceedings. However, the complainant will be awarded moral damages in the amount of 6,000 euros, particularly given the length of the delay and the impact of that delay on him in his personal circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2935
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal appeal; punitive damages;
Judgment 3286
116th Session, 2014
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Non-extension of a fixed-term contract. Failure to investigate allegations of harassment.
Consideration 27
Extract:
The Tribunal rejected the complainant's claim for exemplary damages.
"No analysis was made by the complainant to demonstrate that there had been bias, ill will, malice, bad faith or other improper purpose, being the bases upon which exemplary damages might be awarded (see, for example, Judgment 3092, consideration 16)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3092
Keywords:
burden of proof; lack of evidence; punitive damages;
Judgment 2860
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
[A]s there is no evidence that the impugned decision was motivated by malice, ill will, or discrimination, the claim for punitive damages is rejected.
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 2418
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Appeals Committee considered that the promotion procedure carried out under the vacancy notice was legally flawed and it unanimously recommended that the three contested appointments be revoked and that the application procedure be re-run. The President of the Office refused to re-run the procedure as recommended by the Committee. The Tribunal, having found that the challenged decision was irregular, in breach of the principle of equal treatment and that the Administration's attitude showed a distinct lack of even-handedness, awards punitive damages in the sum of 2,500 euros to each complainant.
Keywords:
bias; breach; decision; equal treatment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; punitive damages;
|
|
|
|
|
