Moral injury (50,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Moral injury
Total judgments found: 419
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 | next >
Judgment 4893
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2008-2009.
Consideration 8
Extract:
More recent case law of the Tribunal makes it clear that moral damages are not awarded when not substantiated. Moral damages arise from moral injury. It is necessary for a complainant to establish evidence of the injury suffered, of the alleged unlawful act adversely affecting her or him, and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (see Judgments 4637, consideration 19, 4158, consideration 7, 4157, consideration 9, and 4156, considerations 5 and 6). In the present case, the complainant does not demonstrate with persuasive evidence that any of the events for which he expressly or impliedly seeks moral damages caused him moral injury, let alone demonstrates a causal link between the alleged unlawful act adversely affecting him and the damage suffered. Accordingly, his various claims for moral damages must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156, 4157, 4158, 4637
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral injury;
Judgment 4891
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Tribunal has long recognized that “international civil servants are entitled to expect that their cases will be considered by internal appeal bodies within a reasonable timeframe and that failure to comply with this requirement of expeditious proceedings constitutes a failing on the part of the employer organisation” (see Judgments 4655, consideration 21, 3510, consideration 24, and 2116, consideration 11). An organisation is indeed expected to process internal appeals with the requisite promptness and diligence, and it has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed (see, for example, Judgments 4173, consideration 12, and 3755, consideration 15).
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the amount of compensation for unreasonable delay is ordinarily influenced by two considerations, one being the length of the delay and the other the effect of the delay (see, for example, Judgments 4655, consideration 21, and 3160, consideration 17). In Judgment 4799, consideration 7, the Tribunal recalled that its recent case law holds that an unreasonable delay in an internal appeal is not sufficient in itself to award moral damages. The complainant must also articulate the adverse effects which the delay has caused (see also Judgment 4563, consideration 14). Furthermore, the Tribunal has regularly stated that, in terms of damages, a complainant seeking compensation must provide clear evidence of the alleged unlawful act, of the injury suffered and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury, and that she or he bears the burden of proof in this regard (see Judgments 4556, consideration 12, 4158, consideration 4, 4157, consideration 7, and 4156, consideration 5).
However, the complainant has failed to provide any persuasive evidence of the moral injury stemming from the delay notwithstanding it was over five years and was unreasonable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 3755, 4157, 4158, 4173, 4556, 4563, 4655, 4799
Keywords:
burden of proof; delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4890
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Turning to the moral damages claimed by the complainant, the Tribunal observes that they are limited to the impact of the undue delay in handling the internal appeal process. […]
But the Tribunal’s case law has recognized that the amount of compensation for unreasonable delay is ordinarily influenced by two considerations, one being the length of the delay and the other the effect of the delay (see, for example, Judgments 4655, consideration 21, and 3160, consideration 17). In Judgment 4799, consideration 7, the Tribunal recalled that its recent case law holds that an unreasonable delay in an internal appeal is not sufficient in itself to award moral damages. The complainant must also articulate the adverse effects which the delay has caused (see also Judgment 4563, consideration 14). Furthermore, the Tribunal has regularly stated that, in terms of damages, a complainant seeking compensation must provide clear evidence of the alleged unlawful act, of the injury suffered and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury, and that she or he bears the burden of proof in this regard (see Judgments 4556, consideration 12, 4158, consideration 4, 4157, consideration 7, and 4156, consideration 5).
The complainant has not discharged this burden in the present case. The evidence of any injury suffered in terms of moral damages or of the detrimental effect of the delay on his situation is barely articulated, if at all, in his submissions. He is therefore not entitled to any compensation in this regard.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4156, 4157, 4158, 4556, 4563, 4655, 4799
Keywords:
burden of proof; delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4886
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the deferral of his application for clearance to carry a service weapon.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant requests that UNESCO be ordered to pay him damages for the excessive delay in the internal appeal procedure.
As an exception to what has just been stated, this claim must be examined because international civil servants are, as a matter of principle, entitled to expect that their case will be dealt with by the internal appeal bodies within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 3510, consideration 24, or 2116, consideration 11). A failure to comply with this need for expeditious proceedings, where wrongful, warrants compensation, the amount of which, under the Tribunal’s case law, ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, or 3160, consideration 17).
In this case, the delay of nearly four years between the submission of the first internal appeal to the Appeals Board on 3 April 2018 and the adoption of the final decision of 14 March 2022 is, in absolute terms, clearly excessive.
However, firstly, the Tribunal notes that the complainant, who asked the Appeals Board three times to extend the time limit for filing his submissions, for a total period of nine months, himself caused some of the delay in the procedure, and, moreover, it may seem reasonable, in view of the extensions obtained by the complainant, that they were also granted to the Organization. Moreover, the Organization explains, convincingly in the Tribunal’s view, that the functioning of the Appeals Board was considerably disrupted, in 2020 and 2021, by the successive lockdowns ordered by the French authorities owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, which, in particular, affected the Board’s capacity to hold its hearings as usual. Lastly, it must be pointed out that, given the abandonment of the process of arming security officers following the delivery of the IOS report of October 2018, the complainant’s internal appeals had become moot shortly after their filing, with the result that the procedural delay was not liable to cause him substantial moral injury (see, in this connection, Judgments 4727, consideration 14, and 4635, consideration 8).
This being so, the Tribunal considers that, in the particular circumstances of the case, there is no reason to order UNESCO to pay compensation to the complainant under that head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 4100, 4178, 4635, 4727
Keywords:
burden of proof; delay; internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4884
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following an investigation.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant also takes issue with the length of time that elapsed between the date of submission of her internal appeal and that of the hearing before the Appeals Board by videoconference.
It should be recalled that, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, firstly, the unreasonableness of a delay in examining an internal appeal must be assessed in the light of the specific circumstances of a given case and, secondly, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on at least two considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4727, consideration 14, 4684, consideration 12, 4635, consideration 8, and 3160, consideration 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4635, 4684, 4727
Keywords:
moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4883
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint at the end of the preliminary assessment procedure.
Consideration 10
Extract:
In this context, the appropriate course is to award the complainant financial compensation for the moral injury caused by the impugned decision. Since the complainant was denied her right to have her harassment complaint properly examined, the Tribunal considers that she suffered moral injury that should be redressed (see for example, in this respect, Judgment 4471, considerations 20 to 22).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4471
Keywords:
harassment; moral injury; procedural flaw;
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
The complainant takes issue with what she regards as the excessive length of the internal appeal procedure.
It should be recalled that, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, firstly, the unreasonableness of a delay in examining an internal appeal must be assessed in the light of the specific circumstances of a given case and, secondly, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on at least two considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4727, consideration 14, 4684, consideration 12, 4635, consideration 8, and 3160, consideration 17).
In the present case, three and a half years passed between the submission of the notice of appeal, on 14 September 2018, and the notification of the final decision, on 9 March 2022. In absolute terms, such a delay is clearly excessive, particularly so having regard to the nature of the dispute.
However, firstly, the Tribunal notes that the complainant, who asked the Appeals Board three times to extend the time limit for submitting her detailed appeal, herself caused some of the delay in the procedure, and, moreover, it may seem reasonable, in view of the extensions obtained by the complainant, that they were also granted to the Organization. Secondly, the Organization explains, convincingly in the Tribunal’s view, that the functioning of the Appeals Board was considerably disrupted in 2020 and 2021 by the successive lockdowns ordered by the French authorities owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, which, in particular, affected the Board’s capacity to hold its hearings as usual. Lastly, the evidence shows that, owing to the continuation of the pandemic, to the national lockdown measures adopted on this occasion and to the health rules put in place at the Organization, it was suggested to the complainant on 27 April 2021 that she appear at a hearing before the Appeals Board by videoconference, but that she wished the hearing “to be held in person when the health situation allow[ed]”. Only later did the complainant agree for a hearing to be held by videoconference, which eventually could take place on 29 October 2021.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal can understand the time taken by the Organization to deal with the complainant’s appeal and considers that the complainant has not therefore duly established that the delay was wrongful. Accordingly, there is no reason to award her damages under this head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4635, 4684, 4727
Keywords:
moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4879
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the deferral of his application for clearance to carry a service weapon.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, an unlawful decision does not entitle the staff member concerned to moral damages unless that decision has caused her or him more severe injury than that resulting from the unlawfulness itself (see, in particular, Judgments 4156, consideration 5, and 1380, consideration 11).
In the present case, and bearing in mind that the contested decision had no tangible effect, the Tribunal considers that any flaws tainting that decision are not, in any event, such as to have caused the complainant such particular injury.
The position would only be different if the complainant were to establish that the deferral of his application for clearance had been motivated, as he submits, by malicious bias against him that formed part of a pattern of moral harassment and retaliatory measures of which he accuses the Chief of the Security and Safety Section.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380, 4156
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral injury;
Judgment 4855
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n this case, the moral injury occasioned by a failure to motivate a decision rejecting a recommendation of an internal appeal body is tolerably clear as is the Organization’s breach of its duty, as found by the Appeals Committee. The complainant is entitled to moral damages, which the Tribunal assesses in the sum of 12,000 euros.
Keywords:
breach; duty of care; impugned decision; internal appeals body; moral damages; moral injury; recommendation;
Judgment 4854
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Director, Office of Strategy, Planning and Resources Management, following a competitive selection process.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n this case, the moral injury occasioned by a failure to motivate a decision rejecting recommendations of an internal appeal body, is tolerably clear as is the Organization’s breach of its duty of care, as found by the Appeals Committee. The complainant is entitled to moral damages, which the Tribunal assesses in the sum of 20,000 euros.
Keywords:
breach; duty of care; impugned decision; internal appeals body; moral damages; moral injury; recommendation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Judgment 4852
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment, by lateral transfer, of another official to the position of Director, FAO Liaison Office in Geneva.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The complainant seeks moral damages for the delay in the determination of his internal appeal on the footing that the delay was inordinate. It is true that the appeal took a long period to resolve, nineteen months or thereabouts, and the impugned decision was taken five and a half months later. However no moral injury was identified, let alone proved as it must be (see Judgment 4595, consideration 11). Accordingly, moral damages in this respect will not be awarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4595
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 4851
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment at the end of the probationary period.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Additionally, the complainant contends that there was inordinate delay in the internal appeal proceedings. […] While there was delay, its existence alone does not justify the awarding of moral damages. According to the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, and 3160, consideration 17). As the complainant has not produced sufficient evidence to prove the effect of the delay on her, her plea on the question of delay is therefore also unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4100, 4178, 4635
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4844
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suppress his post.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Lastly, the complainant complains that the internal appeal procedure lasted nineteen months, which was “totally excessive” in view of the circumstances of the case. [...]
It must be recalled that the Tribunal has consistently held, firstly, that the unreasonableness of a delay in examining an internal appeal must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and, secondly, that the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4727, consideration 14, 4684, consideration 12, 4635, consideration 8, 4173, consideration 12, and 3160, consideration 17).
In the present case, the Tribunal observes that nineteen months elapsed between the date when the complainant lodged his first internal appeal [...] and the date when he was notified of the Secretary General’s decision thereon [...]. In view of the nature of the contested decision, which was liable to compromise the further maintenance of the employment relationship between the complainant and the Organization, such a delay must be considered, in absolute terms, as excessive.
However, the Tribunal notes in this regard that:
– the Organization has established that the Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown measures imposed by the French authorities had the effect of substantially delaying, at least initially, the examination of the internal appeals by the Joint Appeals Committee, which must, in particular, follow a collegial and adversarial procedure;
– the Joint Appeals Committee had, during its investigations, found it necessary to ask the Organization for further information;
– further submissions were made by the parties to the Committee during the procedure;
– the examination of the internal appeal was delayed by various procedural incidents;
– the Secretary General, having received the Committee’s opinion, found it necessary to carry out additional checks [...];
– the additional information gathered was forwarded to the complainant [...] and he was given a deadline of one month to respond.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the time taken to issue the impugned decision [...] is not such as to warrant the award of compensation under this head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4173, 4635, 4684, 4727
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4830
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied decision dismissing his request for his administrative situation to be regularised, the decision ordering his transfer, the decision to award him a special post allowance in that it excluded a certain period and the amount in question was insufficient, and the decision announcing his promotion in that it was not retroactive and did not place him on step 7 of grade G.4.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[T]he complainant is justified in maintaining that the unlawfulness of the contested transfer decision caused him a certain moral injury. The lack of advance information provided to the complainant about the responsibilities involved in the new duties he was to assume were such as to cause him anxiety and stress and adversely affected his rights, which is characteristic of that form of injury. The Tribunal considers that this injury will be fairly redressed by awarding him damages in the amount of 7,000 euros.
Keywords:
moral injury; transfer;
Judgment 4823
138th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him a contract of indefinite duration.
Consideration 30
Extract:
[W]hile the complainant alleges having suffered a moral injury because of the breach by the Organisation of its duty of care, he provides no support of any nature whatsoever to justify the existence of his prejudice. The Tribunal’s case law relevantly states that a complainant seeking compensation for moral damages must provide clear evidence of the alleged unlawful act, of the injury suffered and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury, and that she or he bears the burden of proof in this regard (see, for example, Judgments 4556, consideration 12, 4158, consideration 4, 4157, consideration 7, 4156, consideration 5, and 3778, consideration 4). In Judgment 4801, consideration 7, the Tribunal recalled that specification of the moral injury caused by the unlawful act at issue and evidence supporting its existence preconditioned any award of moral damages. In a situation where, like here, a complainant merely refers to broad statements that remain unsubstantiated, compensation for alleged moral injury cannot be granted by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3778, 4156, 4157, 4158, 4556, 4801
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral injury;
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.
Considerations 16-18
Extract:
The complainant also argues that due to the senior position that he held in the Agency, his exemplary career path, the abrupt nature of his ousting and the “misleading”* nature of the entire reassignment procedure launched in his regard, he is justified in claiming compensation from the Organisation for the significant moral injury that he has suffered.
The Tribunal, first of all, considers indisputable that the complainant’s annual appraisals were always highly favourable [...].
Moreover, the abrupt manner in which the complainant was ousted is in no doubt either in the circumstances of the case.
Furthermore, the various decisions of which he was notified on 5 July 2019 are based on manifestly unlawful acts [...].
Lastly, the Tribunal observes that the manner in which the complainant’s reassignment procedure was conducted following his ousting also caused him obvious moral injury. [...]
In summary, it is clear that, during the reassignment procedure launched in his regard, the complainant had no prospect of being reclassified [...]. The Tribunal notes in this respect that Eurocontrol itself acknowledges, without providing any further explanation on this point, that “it was not feasible for the complainant to return to work in a structure in which his functions ha[d] been abolished” [...].
In the light of the above, the Tribunal must conclude that the overall context in which the complainant’s reassignment procedure was conducted can only have been very painful for him, which warrants compensation for moral injury.
Keywords:
abolition of post; moral injury; reassignment;
Judgment 4818
138th Session, 2024
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision denying her and her dependents an individual medical insurance plan following her separation from service.
Consideration 12
Extract:
As for the complainant’s claim for moral damages, the organisation correctly points out that the complainant increased her claim from 15,000 United States dollars to 50,000 euros, without any explanation or basis for such increase. In the absence of any justification for the increase, the Tribunal will not consider any compensation beyond the 15,000 United States dollars originally claimed in the internal appeal process (see, for example, Judgments 4095, consideration 3, and 3419, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419, 4095
Keywords:
moral injury; new claim;
Consideration 25
Extract:
Regarding moral damages, the complainant contends that the impugned decision inflicted humiliation and distress upon her. The Tribunal’s well established case law states the following:
“[...] [T]he complainant bears the burden of proof and she or he must provide evidence of the injury suffered, of the alleged unlawful act, and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (see Judgments 3778, consideration 4, 2471, consideration 5, and 1942, consideration 6). The mere fact that a decision was initially flawed does not suffice to warrant awarding damages for moral injury. [...] To be entitled to moral damages, an official must have suffered more severe injury than that which an improper decision ordinarily causes (see Judgment 1380, consideration 11).”
(See, for example, Judgment 4156, consideration 5.)
The complainant’s claim for moral damages is rejected as she does not provide sufficient evidence to prove the injury she suffered and the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380, 1942, 2471, 3778, 4156
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral injury;
Judgment 4816
138th Session, 2024
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of the compensation for the short notice, due by the South Centre, after the non-renewal of his short-term appointment as well as the calculation of his last salary.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Whatever the eventual outcome of this dispute, the failure to consider the complainant’s internal appeal has had the effect of delaying its final settlement. That failure alone has caused the complainant moral injury that will be fairly redressed by ordering the organisation to pay him compensation in the amount of 3,000 Swiss francs, as claimed by the complainant. As the complainant succeeds in part, he is entitled to costs, which the Tribunal sets at 3,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
moral injury; right of appeal;
Judgment 4808
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the outcome of the investigation procedure conducted in respect of her harassment grievance and the resulting lack of compensation.
Consideration 13
Extract:
In the circumstances, the Tribunal should normally refer the matter to the Director-General in order for him to determine the redress that it would be appropriate to contemplate as compensation for the injury suffered by the complainant as a result of the harassment established. However, in view of the time that has elapsed and the fact that there is sufficient evidence and information in the file to enable the Tribunal to reach a decision on the nature of this redress and to properly assess the amount of compensation for moral injury claimed by the complainant, it would be inappropriate to do so in this case (see, for example, Judgments 4663, consideration 17, 4602, consideration 18, and 4471, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4471, 4602, 4663
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; compensation; harassment; moral injury;
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[E]ven though the breach of confidentiality is proven (as it has been acknowledged by the EPO), there is no evidence that the complainant suffered any damage as a result of that breach. Considering all the facts and relevant circumstances of the present case, […] the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s request for damages is unsubstantiated.
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; burden of proof; confidentiality; moral damages; moral injury;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s consistent case law holds that the amount of compensation for unreasonable delay in internal proceedings will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as a lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal (see Judgments 4563, consideration 14, and 3160, considerations 16 and 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4563
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral damages; moral injury;
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, the complainant bears the burden of proof that he suffered moral injury (see Judgments 4522, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein, and 4012, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4012, 4522
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral injury;
Judgment 4801
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of the Principal Director of Human Resources.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Insofar as moral damages are concerned, she simply asserts in her brief that she seeks such damages ‘for the injustice and personal harm caused by the clearly discriminatory underevaluation of the Complainant’s professional experience in order to favor [the new Principal Director of Human Resources]’. Beyond this broad statement, there is no specification of the moral injury caused by the appointment nor evidence supporting its existence. These matters precondition the award of moral damages (see, for example, Judgment 4644, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4644
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral damages; moral injury;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 | next >
|
