|
|
 |
|
|
Moral damages (692,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Moral damages
Total judgments found: 59
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4867
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the determination of her leave status during her absence from work as well as the decision, taken as a result of her internal appeal, not to award her moral damages and to grant her up to 2,500 Swiss francs in legal costs.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[M]oral prejudice, which includes, inter alia, emotional distress, anxiety, stress, anguish and hardship (see Judgment 4644, consideration 7) must be proven, and the complainant bears the burden of proof. The complainant has not established to the Tribunal’s satisfaction a causal link between the Organization’s conduct and her suffering.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4644
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral damages;
Judgment 4859
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the failure to respect confidentiality, even if it were proven, is not a decisive flaw in the proceedings which would justify the setting aside of the disciplinary decision. The breach of confidentiality, if proven, might only arguably entitle the complainant to moral damages.
[…]
In conclusion, there is neither evidence that UNAIDS failed to follow the proper procedures to ensure the confidentiality of the investigation nor of how the rumours were started, thus, no legal consequences arise (see Judgment 3236, consideration 14). Since there is no persuasive evidence that the Organization was responsible for the unauthorized disclosure of information, the leak cannot be considered as part of a pattern of retaliation, and the complainant is not entitled to moral damages for breach of confidentiality.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3236
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; flaw; moral damages;
Judgment 4858
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the failure to respect confidentiality, even if it were proven, does not amount to a conclusive flaw in the proceedings which would justify the setting aside of the disciplinary decision. The breach of confidentiality, if proven, might only arguably entitle the complainant to moral damages.
[…]
In conclusion, there is neither evidence that UNAIDS failed to follow the proper procedures to ensure the confidentiality of the investigation nor of how the rumours were started, thus, no legal consequences arise (see Judgment 3236, consideration 14). Since there is no persuasive evidence that the Organization was responsible for the unauthorized disclosure of information, the leak cannot be considered as part of a pattern of retaliation, and the complainant is not entitled to moral damages for breach of confidentiality.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3236
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; flaw; moral damages;
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 4850
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied the complainant suffered a moral injury as a result of being denied the right of review of the medical assessment leading directly to the termination of his employment, effective 1 October 2018. He is entitled to moral damages which are assessed in the sum of 10,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
burden of proof; duty to inform; loss of opportunity; medical opinion; moral damages; notification; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 35
Extract:
The complainant also claims moral damages in an amount equal to no less than one year of her former gross salary and benefits. But the Tribunal’s case law states that in respect of damages, the complainant bears the burden of proof and that she must provide evidence of the alleged injury (see, for example, Judgment 4156, consideration 5). It suffices to note that in the present situation, notwithstanding this precedent, the complainant did not provide any specification of the moral injury she allegedly suffered nor evidence supporting its existence. This claim must consequently be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; due process; fixed-term; injury; moral damages; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4839
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her sexual harassment claim.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Where the investigation into a harassment complaint is found to be flawed, the Tribunal will ordinarily remit the matter to the organisation concerned so that a new investigation can be conducted (see, for example, Judgment 4313, consideration 8). However, the complainant asks the Tribunal not to refer the matter back to IOM, but to award her material and moral damages. In view of this and the time that has elapsed, the Tribunal considers it inappropriate to refer the case back to IOM.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4313
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; damages; flaw; investigation; material damages; moral damages; remand;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Considerations 18-21
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious from the content of the Appeals Commission report that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature and that it was relating specifically to the investigation and disciplinary procedure at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4836
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for several positions.
Considerations 13-17
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious from the content of the Appeals Commission report that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature and that it was relating specifically to the selection procedures at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4835
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of employment that had been extended to him, on the basis that he had been disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious […] that the Commission interviewed these Federation staff on various issues which touched and concerned “the circumstances in which the offer was rescinded”. This tends to demonstrate that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature, and that it was relating specifically to the rescission of the offer of employment at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Considerations 12-15
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] While the Appeals Commission’s report is almost silent about the content of those interviews, its statement that “[…]” tends to demonstrate that the interviews were not about the Federation’s budgetary framework but about the specific situation of the complainant and the decision not to extend his contract. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4833
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision setting aside the disciplinary measure that had been imposed on him due to a procedural flaw, reopening the investigation by providing him with all the evidence gathered as part of the investigation and allowing him to comment on it, and declining to award him moral damages.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Secretary General accepted all relief the Appeals Commission recommended the complainant be awarded, except moral damages. Thus, this complaint raises a cause of action only in relation to that issue. In this respect, the Secretary General was entitled to exercise his discretionary power to refuse to accept the recommendation to award moral damages. […] His decision in this respect was not unlawful. Accordingly, there is no basis for the Tribunal to award moral damages.
Keywords:
cause of action; discretion; moral 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 4829
138th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his compensation claim for service-incurred injury and illness as time-barred.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s claim for moral damages, the IAEA’s failure in its duty to forward the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent authority within the IAEA to be notified of work-related accidents and/or illnesses, has added to the delay in the final settlement of this case, whatever its eventual outcome may be (see Judgment 3674, consideration 10). This alone caused the complainant injury for which he is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; delay; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; moral damages; service-incurred;
Judgment 4827
138th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay him a repatriation grant upon his separation from service.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for moral damages is dismissed since he has not proven the unlawfulness of the IAEA’s act (see, for example, Judgments 4157, consideration 7, 4156, consideration 5, 3778, consideration 4, and 2471, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2471, 3778, 4156, 4157
Keywords:
moral damages;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; moral damages;
Considerations 9-11, 14 & 17
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] notes that, in the impugned decision, the Director-General did not properly analyse whether or not it was appropriate to provide compensation for the moral injury suffered by the complainant as a victim of the harassment identified by the investigator in her report and recognized by the Organization. In so doing, the Director-General acted in breach of [the] provisions [which] established the complainant’s right to obtain explanations concerning compensation measures that may have been imposed taking into account the harassment identified in the investigation report; however, the Director-General did not attempt such explanations in the impugned decision. [...]
In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the Director-General’s comments in the impugned decision concerning the disciplinary actions or corrective measures that could not be taken due to the retirement of Mr N. and Ms D. did not relate to compensation for the victim of the harassment, namely the complainant.
Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that the Director-General appears to have considered that the payment of benefits received by the complainant under Annex II to the Staff Regulations, further to the recognition of the health problems from which she suffered as a result of the harassment as a service-incurred illness, covered all the injury suffered by the complainant. However, such benefits are not intended to cover the moral injury resulting from this harassment.
The Tribunal further notes that the Director-General’s other comment contained in the impugned decision, that the investigation report would help in some measure to bring the matter to a close, did not, in the circumstances of the case, constitute adequate compensation.
With regard to the Director-General’s comment that, if the complainant required any further support or assistance he encouraged her to make her needs known to HRD, this also was not compensation. [...] The Organization adds that, where a right to
compensation exists, express provision is made in the relevant texts. However, it contends that there is no express provision requiring the Director-General to award financial compensation in the procedure for the administrative resolution of harassment grievances.
The Tribunal cannot accept the defendant’s reading of the relevant provisions, which provide expressly for the right to redress of a staff member subjected to harassment and require the Director-General to consider the applicable remedies in a situation where harassment is recognized. The assertion that no express provision requires the Director-General to grant financial compensation is based on a confusion between the right to redress and the nature of the relief that could be awarded. While it is true that redress does not automatically imply the award of financial compensation and that, in some cases, measures other than the payment of a sum of money may prove adequate, the fact remains that the Organization ought first to have determined the appropriate redress for the complainant in the circumstances of the case, which it did not properly do.
Furthermore, in Judgment 4602, considerations 14 and 16, the Tribunal recalled that, even in a situation where no provision in the internal regulations, rules or policies directly provides for the possibility of a compensation to victims of harassment, its case law clearly recognizes the right to such compensation when properly supported:
“14. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal considers that the WTO’s assertion, to the effect that no provision in the internal regulations, rules or policies directly provides for the possibility of a compensation to the individuals who filed a harassment complaint, is in tension with and indeed ignores its rather clear case law which recognises the right to such compensation when properly supported. In Judgment 4207, consideration 15, adopted by all seven judges, the Tribunal wrote the following on this issue:
‘It is observed that there are no specific provisions in the IAEA’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules that articulate a comprehensive procedure to deal with a claim of harassment of the type first discussed in the preceding consideration. In the absence of a lawful comprehensive procedure within the IAEA’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules to deal with a claim of harassment, the IAEA had to respond to the complainant’s claim of harassment in accordance with the Tribunal’s relevant case law. It is well settled in the case law that an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate working environment for its staff members (see Judgment 2706, consideration 5, citing Judgment 2524). As well, ‘given the serious nature of a claim of harassment, an international organization has an obligation to initiate the investigation itself [...]’ (see Judgment 3347, consideration 14). Moreover, the investigation must be initiated promptly, conducted thoroughly and the facts must be determined objectively and in their overall context. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, the complainant is entitled to a response from the Administration regarding the claim of harassment. Additionally, as the Tribunal held in Judgment 2706, consideration 5, ‘an international organisation is liable for all the injuries caused to a staff member by their supervisor acting in the course of his or her duties, when the victim is subjected to treatment that is an affront to his or her personal and professional dignity’ (see also Judgments 1609, consideration 16, 1875, consideration 32, and 3170, consideration 33). Thus, an international organization must take proper actions to protect a victim of harassment.’ These principles have been recognized by the Tribunal’s case law in a number of situations before that Judgment 4207 (see, for example, Judgments 3995, consideration 9, and 3965, considerations 9 and 10) as well as after that Judgment 4207 (see, for example, Judgments 4547, consideration 3, and 4541, consideration 4).
[...]
16. The Tribunal observes that the WTO’s position is not that victims of harassment are not entitled to compensation. It rather argues that relief must be confined to compensation for the injury caused and that a finding of an unlawful act does not in itself establish a sufficient ground for compensation. The Tribunal in fact understands from the assertions contained in the WTO’s pleadings that the Organization recognizes the complainant’s strong emotions in relation to her request for additional compensation and does not wish, by its contestation, to belittle her feelings in this regard in any way. The WTO emphasizes, however, that any requests for additional compensation sought by the complainant must still meet the applicable legal requirements. On this matter, the Tribunal’s case law indicates that any complainant seeking compensation for material or moral damages must provide clear evidence of the injury suffered, of the alleged unlawful act, and of the causal link between the injury and the unlawful act (see, for instance, Judgments 4158, consideration 4, 3778, consideration 4, 2471, consideration 5, 1942, consideration 6, and 732, consideration 3), 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).”
The general principle that “an international organisation is liable for all the injuries caused to a staff member by their supervisor [...] when the victim is subjected to treatment that is an affront to his or her personal and professional dignity”, asserted in Judgment 2706, consideration 5, and reiterated in the aforementioned Judgment 4207, applies all the more with regard to the measures to be considered by the executive head in a harassment situation (see also, on this subject, Judgments 4217, consideration 9, and 4171, consideration 11).
Lastly, in Judgment 4299, consideration 5, the Tribunal recalled the following in a case where a staff member alleged to have been harassed and requested compensation:
“It is true that a staff member who has, in the latter situation just discussed, established she or he has been harassed may also be entitled to an award of moral damages by the organization for the harassment (see, for example, Judgment 4158, consideration 3). Whether there is such an entitlement may depend on the terms of the regime in place within the organization to deal with harassment grievances. It is certainly something that can be awarded in proceedings in the Tribunal (see Judgment 4241, considerations 24 and 25). However, what is important is that, even if moral damages might be awarded, that is a subsidiary remedy or relief available in cases of this type when harassment is established. As just discussed, the primary obligation of the organization if harassment is proved is to protect the complainant and prevent further harassment.”
In a situation similar to that of the complainant in the present case, the Tribunal’s case law recognizes that it is the responsibility of the organization that establishes the existence of harassment to redress the injury caused and that, ordinarily, this redress should take the form of monetary compensation for the injury suffered (see, on this subject, Judgment 4158, consideration 3).
[I]t is true that redress for injury suffered by the victim of harassment may, in certain cases, take forms other than monetary compensation [...].
[...]
The Tribunal considers that the complainant has duly established the moral injury she has suffered as a result of the harassment recognized in the investigation report. Since the main factor in the recognition of harassment is the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of repeated acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate them (see, for example, Judgment 4541, consideration 8), the complainant could legitimately, as she maintains, have felt demeaned by the actions of Mr N., and she could have felt that the latter was creating a hostile working environment in her regard, and thus have suffered substantial moral injury (see the aforementioned Judgment 4541, consideration 8).
[...]
[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly recognized the right of a staff member to the payment of monetary compensation for the moral injury suffered as a result of harassment and the resultant affront to her or his dignity (see, for example, Judgments 4663, considerations 17 and 20, 4241, considerations 24 and 25, 4217, consideration 9, and 3995, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1609, 1875, 2524, 2706, 3170, 3347, 3995, 4158, 4207, 4217, 4241, 4541, 4547, 4602, 4663
Keywords:
compensation; harassment; moral damages;
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;
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 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
