|
|
 |
|
|
Punitive damages (644,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Punitive damages
Total judgments found: 24
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4963
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante – dont le poste a été supprimé – conteste la décision de l’assigner à un nouveau poste, tout en la rétrogradant de deux grades, celle de l’affecter de manière temporaire à un autre poste avec effet rétroactif et celle de rejeter sa candidature dans le cadre d’une procédure de concours.
Consideration 23
Extract:
[U]ne jurisprudence constante du Tribunal rappelle que la condamnation d’une organisation au versement de tels dommages-intérêts punitifs ne peut être justifiée que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4819, au considérant 22, 4640, au considérant 15, 4493, au considérant 11, et 4484, au considérant 9). Or, malgré la désinvolture et le mépris regrettable de l’Organisation envers son obligation de traiter adéquatement et diligemment la réclamation de l’intéressée, le Tribunal considère que de telles circonstances ne se rencontrent pas en l’espèce. Il n’y a donc pas lieu de faire droit à cette conclusion.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4484, 4493, 4640, 4819
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 4962
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2019, ainsi que les décisions subséquentes de «geler» son avancement d’échelon et de la soumettre à un plan d’amélioration de ses performances.
Consideration 25
Extract:
[U]ne jurisprudence constante du Tribunal rappelle que la condamnation d’une organisation au versement de dommages-intérêts punitifs ne peut être justifiée que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4819, au considérant 22, 4640, au considérant 15, 4493, au considérant 11, et 4484, au considérant 9). Or, malgré la désinvolture et le mépris regrettable de l’Organisation envers son obligation de traiter adéquatement et diligemment la réclamation de l’intéressée, le Tribunal considère que de telles circonstances ne se rencontrent pas en l’espèce. Il n’y a donc pas lieu de faire droit à cette conclusion.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4484, 4493, 4640, 4819
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 4961
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de rejeter sa plainte pour harcèlement moral, ainsi que ce qu’elle considère être une décision d’annulation de l’évaluation de ses performances pour 2019 et la décision de remettre en place son ancien supérieur hiérarchique et de le désigner comme responsable de l’établissement de son évaluation annuelle pour 2019.
Consideration 25
Extract:
[U]ne jurisprudence constante du Tribunal rappelle que la condamnation d’une organisation au versement de dommages-intérêts punitifs ne peut être justifiée que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4819, au considérant 22, 4640, au considérant 15, 4493, au considérant 11, et 4484, au considérant 9). Or, malgré la désinvolture et le mépris regrettable de l’Organisation envers son obligation de traiter adéquatement et diligemment la réclamation de l’intéressée, le Tribunal considère que de telles circonstances ne se rencontrent pas en l’espèce. Il n’y a donc pas lieu de faire droit à cette conclusion.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4484, 4493, 4640, 4819
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 4959
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste son décompte de congés pour les jours fériés de l’année 2021 et le calcul des déductions effectuées à ce sujet du fait qu’il travaillait à temps partiel.
Consideration 20
Extract:
[M]algré la désinvolture et le mépris regrettable de l’Organisation envers son obligation de traiter adéquatement et diligemment la réclamation de l’intéressé, le Tribunal considère que de telles circonstances ne se rencontrent pas en l’espèce. Il n’y a donc pas lieu de faire droit à cette conclusion.
Keywords:
exemplary damages; punitive damages;
Judgment 4954
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[The] claim for punitive damages is also rejected, as an award of such damages is only warranted in exceptional circumstances, which are not evident in this case (see, for example, Judgment 4659, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4659
Keywords:
punitive damages;
Judgment 4932
139th Session, 2025
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of ITU, challenges its alleged refusal to take steps to ensure that the organization’s insurers would cover his daughter’s medical expenses and his own non-medical expenses, as well as the lack of response to his requests for clarifications related to his health care contributions.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant has not provided any 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 4756, consideration 11, 4286, consideration 19, and 3419, consideration 8). Accordingly, the request for punitive damages has no grounds and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419, 4286, 4756
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; malice; punitive damages;
Judgment 4832
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.
Considerations 55-56
Extract:
Before anything else, the Tribunal finds it necessary to mention that claiming amounts of this magnitude [i.e. 1,000,000 Swiss francs in moral, exemplary, and punitive damages] does not serve, assist or help the credibility of the requests submitted. The Tribunal observes as well that the complainant does not substantiate in any way how the amounts claimed are divided between moral damages, on the one hand, and punitive damages, on the other hand.
Bearing that in mind, it is convenient to recall that the Tribunal’s established case law relevantly states that any complainant seeking compensation for either material or moral damages must always provide evidence of the injury suffered, of the alleged unlawful act, and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (see, for example, Judgments 4158, consideration 4, 3778, consideration 4, 2471, consideration 5, and 1942, consideration 6), and that it is the complainant who bears the burden of proof in this respect (see Judgments 4158, consideration 4, 4157, consideration 7, and 4156, consideration 5). It is convenient for the Tribunal to recall as well that punitive damages are only awarded in exceptional circumstances (see, for example, Judgment 4659, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1942, 2471, 3778, 4156, 4157, 4158, 4659
Keywords:
burden of proof; material damages; moral damages; punitive damages;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant requests that the Organisation be ordered to pay 25,000 euros in punitive damages for its unfair conduct.
However, the Tribunal recalls that, according to consistent precedent, an award of punitive damages is only warranted in exceptional circumstances (see, in particular, Judgments 4659, consideration 14, 4658, consideration 10, 4506, consideration 10, and 4391, consideration 14), and finds that such circumstances are not evident in this case.
There are, therefore, no grounds for granting this request.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4391, 4506, 4658, 4659
Keywords:
exemplary damages; punitive damages;
Judgment 4819
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place him on “administrative leave” as a consequence of the structural reorganization of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Organisation’s secretariat, which led to the abolition of his functions and the launch of a reassignment procedure, as well as the decision to reject his allegations of moral harassment.
Consideration 22
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers, in view of the evidence on file, that the number and gravity of the various unlawful acts committed by Eurocontrol in the present case constitute a flagrant breach of its obligation to act in good faith and a seriously disrespectful treatment of the complainant, which warrant ordering the Organisation to pay punitive damages (see, for example, Judgments 4391, consideration 14, 4385, consideration 7, 2720, consideration 16, and 2418, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2418, 2720, 4385, 4391
Keywords:
punitive 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 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;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
