|
|
 |
|
|
Exemplary damages (689,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Exemplary damages
Total judgments found: 22
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4690
136th Session, 2023
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to uphold his transfer to Budapest.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant has been represented by experienced counsel who has attested to the complainant’s pleas. It is true that the complainant seeks, but only by way of relief nominated in the complaint form and at the conclusion of the brief by way of summary, 300,000 euros as exemplary damages. In general, these damages are meant to sanction bias, ill will, malice, bad faith, and other improper purpose (see, for example, Judgment 3092, consideration 16). However, in his pleas (both in his brief and rejoinder) the complainant makes no submission at all about exemplary damages, and he confines his submissions to moral damages. The two are different. Moral damages are to compensate for a moral injury. Exemplary damages are awarded as a sanction for the defendant organisation’s conduct. In the absence of pleas expressly addressing a claim for exemplary damages, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Tribunal to award them.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3092
Keywords:
exemplary damages; moral damages;
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 4633
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the sanction of demotion.
Consideration 16
Extract:
Exemplary damages may be awarded if a complainant has provided persuasive evidence and analysis to demonstrate that there was bias, ill will, malice, bad faith or other improper purpose attending the impugned decision (see, for example, Judgment 4181, consideration 11). [The complainant] asserts this is so in the present case. However, what cannot be overlooked is that it simply cannot be said that the disciplinary proceedings against the complainant were unwarranted. They plainly were justified. While the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee was flawed in the way already discussed, as was the impugned decision, the Committee’s analysis nonetheless reveals a case against the complainant which is not devoid of substance. If it is proved, his conduct was egregious. It is simply untenable for the complainant to adopt the position, as he effectively does, of simply being an innocent victim of persecutory conduct within the EPO. Exemplary damages are not warranted.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4181
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Judgment 4603
135th Session, 2023
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment on account of his unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 13
Extract:
As 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, Judgment 4181, under 11), his claim for such damages will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4181
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Judgment 4596
135th Session, 2023
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to pay him a termination indemnity upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 17
Extract:
With regard to the claim for exemplary damages, the complainant has provided no evidence or analysis to establish 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 4286, consideration 19, and 3419, consideration 8). Accordingly, no exemplary damages will be awarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419, 4286
Keywords:
burden of proof; exemplary damages;
Judgment 4578
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
As the complainant has not substantiated his allegations that the decision to close the case was taken for an improper purpose amounting to abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3939, consideration 10, and 3172, consideration 16) or that it was based on bias (see, for example, Judgment 4010, consideration 9); that it was tainted by personal prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3912, consideration 13) or bad faith (see, for example, Judgment 3902, consideration 11), there is no basis on which to grant exemplary damages which he claims (see, for example, Judgment 3092, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3092, 3172, 3902, 3912, 3939, 4010
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Judgment 4522
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to conduct an investigation into allegations of breach of confidentiality and the refusal to disclose two documents.
Consideration 19
Extract:
With regard to the request for exemplary damages, the complainant has provided no evidence or analysis to establish that there was bias, ill will, malice, bad faith or other improper purpose on which to base an award of punitive damages (see, for example, Judgments 4286, consideration 19, and 3419, consideration 8). Accordingly, no exemplary damages will be awarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419, 4286
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Judgment 4516
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 12
Extract:
With respect to the claim for exemplary damages, the Tribunal notes that in general these awards are meant to sanction bias, ill will, malice, bad faith, and other improper purpose (see, for example, Judgment 3092, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3092
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Consideration 11
Extract:
As the complainant has not substantiated his allegations that the decision to close the case was taken for an improper purpose amounting to abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3172, consideration 16, and 3939, consideration 10) or that it was based on bias (see, for example, Judgment 4010, consideration 9); that it was tainted by personal prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3912, consideration 13) or bad faith (see, for example, Judgment 3902, consideration 11), there is no basis on which to grant exemplary damages which he claims (see, for example, Judgment 3092, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3092, 3172, 3902, 3912, 3939, 4010
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; exemplary damages; personal prejudice;
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 4452
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to suspend him with pay and then without pay during the disciplinary procedure for misconduct as well as the appointment of a colleague to what he describes as his “job and functions”.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant also seeks additional moral damages and exemplary damages. These damages are sought on the basis of “the emotional and financial stress placed on [the complainant] and his family [...] and as [the unlawful decisions] severely injured his professional reputation and dignity”. There is no obvious relationship, nor any proved, between the matters just referred to and the unlawful suspension without pay for approximately two and a half months being the period between the time of the decision to suspend without pay and the time of the decision to dismiss. No moral or exemplary damages are warranted.
Keywords:
exemplary damages; moral injury; suspension without pay;
Judgment 4390
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for alleged delays in the processing of his request to transfer previously acquired pension rights to the EPO’s pension scheme.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant [...] seeks 50,000 euros exemplary damages “for [the Office’s refusal] to recognise relevant [Tribunal] case law and necessitating the protracted procedure culminating in the present [c]omplaint”. This claim will be rejected as 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, Judgment 4181, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4181
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Consideration 19
Extract:
The Tribunal considers the complainant’s claim for exemplary damages to be unsustainable as she 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, Judgment 3419, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Judgment 4240
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to the post of Senior Advisor on Innovative Strategic Information, Strategic Information and Evaluation Department.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant provides no proof that the decision was based on malice, ill-will, bias, discrimination or prejudice towards her or that the decision was taken in retaliation against her, as she alleges (see, for example, Judgment 3753, consideration 13). There is therefore no basis for the award of the exemplary damages which the complainant claims.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3753
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Judgment 4239
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for health reasons and claims that the compensation she received for her service-incurred injury is grossly inadequate.
Consideration 27
Extract:
The complainant [...] seeks exemplary damages. However, the conduct of WHO does not exhibit any of the characteristics which might justify the award of exemplary damages (see, for example, Judgment 3419, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Judgment 4215
129th Session, 2020
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.
Consideration 26
Extract:
There are no grounds in this case for granting the complainant’s claim that OTIF should additionally be ordered to pay him exemplary damages.
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Judgment 4181
128th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the failure by the ICC to complete his performance appraisal in conformity with the applicable statutory provisions.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[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, Judgment 3419, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Judgment 4043
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 25
Extract:
For the foregoing reasons no disciplinary sanction should have been imposed on the complainant including the sanction of dismissal. The decisions of the President of 15 January 2016 and 10 June 2016 to dismiss the complainant and affirm his dismissal will be set aside. An order will be made reinstating the complainant with all legal consequences. The complainant must give credit for any earnings from professional employment during the period between 15 January 2016 and the date of his reinstatement, which shall be deducted from the amounts due. Interest will accrue at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the resulting remuneration arrears from due dates until the date of payment. The complainant is entitled to moral damages and an order for costs [...]. Exemplary damages, as sought by the complainant, are not warranted.
Keywords:
exemplary damages; reinstatement;
Judgment 3419
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant was entitled to moral damages for identified errors of the Administration.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant also claims exemplary damages, in addition to compensation for moral damages, on the ground that he suffered malice, bias and harassment by the Administration. The Tribunal considers this claim to be unsustainable as 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 3092, under 16, and 3286, under 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3092, 3286
Keywords:
exemplary damages;
Judgment 3092
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-18
Extract:
With respect to the claim for exemplary damages, the Tribunal notes that in general these awards are meant to sanction bias, ill will, malice, bad faith, and other improper purpose. Although the complainant broadly alleges bias, conflict of interest, malice, bad faith, and other improper motivation in her pleadings, she does not separately analyse the grounds upon which an award of exemplary damages could rest. In Judgment 2762 involving similar allegations, under 25, the Tribunal held that:
“the main thrust of the complaint is the allegation of abuse of authority, conflict of interest, bias and bad faith […]. At this juncture, it should be noted that in the complainant’s submissions there is no separate analysis for each of these allegations. Instead, the complainant uses the terms almost interchangeably. For the purpose of this discussion, it is not necessary to engage in a separate legal analysis for each of the allegations.”
Further, in Judgment 2293, under 12, the Tribunal noted:
“Although to act in bad faith is always to mismanage, the reverse is not the case and honest mistakes or even sheer stupidity will not, without more, be enough. Bad faith requires an element of malice, ill will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose.”
In the present case, a review of the overall procedure and the Administration’s specific decisions and conduct, which the complainant alleges demonstrate improper purposes or motives, are equally amenable to explanations that do not involve bad faith, but rather a lack of diligence in processing the claim in a timely manner. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that an award of exemplary damages is not warranted in the circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2293, 2762
Keywords:
bad faith; exemplary damages;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
