O estudo em comento tem por objetivo analisar se o instituto jurídico dos punitive damages, oriundo da Common Law, tem aplicabilidade no ordenamento jurídico nacional, particularmente no âmbito das relações de consumo. Para tanto, a presente obra, além de apresentar um panorama histórico da responsabilidade civil punitiva, expõe como tal responsabilidade vem sendo aceita no Brasil e conclui como sendo dois os seus principais instrumentos de atuação: a indenização punitiva e os punitive damages. Diferenciando-os, entendemos que os punitive damages eram os mais adequados a atual sociedade de consumo brasileira, por constituir-se um valor fixado em separado, com o intuito específico de punir e avaliado conforme a complexidade do caso pelo magistrado, conferindo dinamismo e eficiência às punições. Nesse sentido, propusemos os critérios que em nosso sentir seriam os mais adequados para a aplicação dos punitive damages e a fixação do quantum punitivo no âmbito das relações de consumo, bem como os fatores que justificam a aplicação do referido instituto jurídico nestas relações. Apresentamos, ademais, uma análise da aplicabilidade dos punitive damages nos ordenamentos jurídicos de Common e Civil Law que mais influenciam o ordenamento jurídico nacional. / This study aims to examine whether the legal institution of punitive damages, coming from the Common Law, is applicable in national law, particularly in the context of consumer relations. This essay, besides presenting historical overview of punitive liability, explains how this responsibility is being accepted in Brazil and concludes that there are two main instruments of action. The first instrument is based on the increase of the compensatory damages to punish the defendant. The other one is the punitive damages. We believe that punitive damages were more suitable to the current consumer society in Brazil, because it represents a value that is set apart, with the purpose of punishing and evaluated according to the complexity of the case by the magistrate, giving dynamism and efficiency to the punishment. In this sense, we proposed rules that in our opinion would be most suitable for the application of punitive damages and setting of the punitive quantum under products liability, as well as factors warranting the application of this legal institution in these relationships. We present, moreover, analysis of the applicability of punitive damages in the legal systems of Common and Civil Law that most influence Brazilian Law.

The aim of the thesis is to examine whether the prohibition of overcompensation in the Antitrust Damages Directive is compatible with the EU legal and normative framework. To this end, the analysis is carried out on two levels. First, the rationale for damages in the selected jurisdictions (England, France and Germany) and in the EU is examined to test the main underpinning justification for the prohibition of overcompensation in the Antitrust Damages Directive, i.e. the 'European legal tradition argument'. Second, the thesis addresses broader constitutional implications that underpin the debate on the desirability of the pursuit to prohibit overcompensation in the EU. These entail questions pertaining to the adoption of such measures and, thus, exploring whether the EU has the legitimacy to legislate and the related question of competence and the choice of the appropriate legal basis. The argument to be advanced in this thesis is that the aim of achieving a sufficient level of deterrence with awarding damages for EU competition law infringements stems from the very conceptual basis in which the right to damages is grounded - the principle of effective judicial protection and the principle of effectiveness. Thus, as the analysis reveals, the prohibition of overcompensation is inconsistent with the EU legal framework, since it has potential to jeopardise the deterrent or dissuasive function of antitrust damages actions. The prohibition of overcompensation has significantly contributed to the business-biased gist of the Directive, and thus to breaking the link between the rationale for the right to damages for EU competition law infringements, the legal basis and the content of the Directive. The thesis ultimately argues that the Directive's prohibition is incompatible with the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality, and to a considerable extent inconsistent with the EU's legal and normative framework.

Le préjudice économique pur est celui qui ne résulte ni d’une atteinte à la personne, ni d’une atteinte aux biens et qui génère des conséquences économiques négatives comme c’est le cas du dommage causé à l’économie, ou encore celui du préjudice résultant d’un acte de concurrence déloyale. Cette notion est peu connue du droit français. La pratique montre cependant que certains préjudices économiques relevant de cette définition existent et sont indemnisés.De cette constatation pratique résultent différentes difficultés. Il existe un amalgame entre ce préjudice économique pur et les préjudices économiques qui, au contraire, sont le résultat d’une atteinte à la personne ou aux biens. Cet amalgame nuit à la réparation effective du préjudice économique pur. Plus encore, l’absence de régime juridique adapté emporte une dénaturation des mécanismes de responsabilité civile tant les critères traditionnels de celles-ci sont mis à mal dès qu’il s’agit de réparer un préjudice économique pur. Divers exemples illustrent ces difficultés. Le dommage causé à l’économie, par exemple, ou encore le préjudice subi en matière de concurrence déloyale, pour lesquels le caractère certain est rarement établi. Il conviendrait, dès lors, d’adapter, d’aménager des règles existantes afin de parvenir à une réparation efficace du préjudice économique pur. Participant de ces aménagements, la question, déjà ancienne, des dommages et intérêts punitifs, ou encore le renouvellement de la question de la réparation « économique » en nature par la restitution du « surprofit » comme proposé par certains.Un cadre juridique adapté pourrait ainsi régir les critères d’existence du préjudice économique pur, d’une part, et ses critères d’évaluation, d’autre part. / Pure economic loss is the one that results neither from a personal injury nor from damage to property and generates negative economic consequences, such as the damage caused to the economy, or as the prejudice resulting from an act of unfair competition. This notion is little known to the French law. However, practise shows that some economic prejudices under this definition exist and are compensated for. From this practical ascertainment result several difficulties. There is confusion between pure economic loss and economic damages that, on the contrary, are the result of an injury to person or property. This confusion harms the effective compensation of the pure economic loss. Moreover, the absence of an appropriate legal regime entails a distortion of liability mechanisms, as its traditional criteria are undermined when it comes to repairing a pure economic loss. Various examples illustrate these difficulties: the damage to the economy, for instance, or the injury in terms of unfair competition, for which the certainty is rarely established. Therefore, it would be appropriate to adapt and develop the existing rules in order to achieve effective compensation for pure economic loss. Amongst these developments: the rather already old question of these punitive damages, or the renewal of the issue of « economic » compensation in nature through the restitution of « over profit », as suggested by some. A suitable legal framework could thus govern the existence of pure economic loss criteria on the one hand, and its assessment criteria on the other.

Magistro baigiamojo darbo tema - „Nuostoliai ir jų atlyginimas statybos sutartiniuose santykiuose“. Raktiniai žodžiai: nuostoliai, nuostolių atlyginimas, statybos rangos sutartiniai santykiai, statybos rangos sutartis, užsakovas, rangovas. Magistriniame darbe analizuojami statybos sutartiniai santykiai. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad statybos ranga yra populiariausias statybos organizavimo būdas, darbe nagrinėjami santykiai, kylantys iš statybos rangos. Vartojimo ranga darbe nenagrinėjama. Statybos rangos sutartinių santykių pagrindas yra šalis siejanti sutartis. Nuostoliai sukeliami tada, kai viena iš šalių arba abi šalys neįvykdo arba netinkamai įvykdo sutartį. Pirmame skyriuje nagrinėjami bendrieji nuostolių klausimai tokie kaip, nuostolių sąvoka, rūšys, nuostolių atlyginimo sąlygos bei atleidimas nuo nuostolių atlyginimo statybos rangos sutartiniuose santykiuose. Antrame skyriuje nagrinėjami nuostolių ir jų atlyginimo ypatumai ikisutartiniuose statybos rangos santykiuose. Trečiame skyriuje analizuojami dažniausiai pasitaikantys statybos rangos sutarties pažeidimai, jų kilimo priežastys, nuostoliai, kurie kyla dėl sutarties pažeidimų, bei jų atlyginimas. Išanalizavus teisės aktus, teisės doktriną bei teismų praktiką, patvirtinami darbe nurodyti ginamieji teiginiai. Kadangi Lietuvoje nėra vieningos nuomonės, kokią atsakomybę taikyti ikisutartiniuose santykiuose, dėl to nuostoliai ne visada yra tinkamai atlyginami statybos rangos ikisutartiniuose santykiuose. Taip pat, autorė... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The subject of master work – „Damages and their compensation in construction contractual relations“ Keywords: damages, compensation for damages, construction contractual relations, construction contract, client, contractor. In this master work author analyses construction contractual relations. Consumer contract relations are not the object of analysis. The base of construction contractual relations is a construction contract. When one of contract parties or both parties breaches the contract that causes damages. In the first part author analyses general questions about damages. Damages concept, types of damages, conditions for damages compensation, releases from damages compensation in construction contractual relations. In the second part author analyses damages and their compensation in pre-contractual construction relations. The third part of the work is commited to analysis of the most common breach of construction contract, causes of breach of contract and also damages and their compensation in construction contractual relations. After accomplishing analysis of legal act, law doctrine and practice of Lithuanian Courts, author can prove defended statements. Since there is no consensus about what kind of liability should be in pre-contractual relations in Lithuania, damages in construction contractual relations are compensated wrongly. Also author confirmes that imperative duty to cooperate is one of the remedies to avoid damages or reduce existing damages to a minimum... [to full text]

Universiẗat, Diss., 2006--Saarbrücken.

O estudo em comento tem por objetivo analisar se o instituto jurídico dos punitive damages, oriundo da Common Law, tem aplicabilidade no ordenamento jurídico nacional, particularmente no âmbito das relações de consumo. Para tanto, a presente obra, além de apresentar um panorama histórico da responsabilidade civil punitiva, expõe como tal responsabilidade vem sendo aceita no Brasil e conclui como sendo dois os seus principais instrumentos de atuação: a indenização punitiva e os punitive damages. Diferenciando-os, entendemos que os punitive damages eram os mais adequados a atual sociedade de consumo brasileira, por constituir-se um valor fixado em separado, com o intuito específico de punir e avaliado conforme a complexidade do caso pelo magistrado, conferindo dinamismo e eficiência às punições. Nesse sentido, propusemos os critérios que em nosso sentir seriam os mais adequados para a aplicação dos punitive damages e a fixação do quantum punitivo no âmbito das relações de consumo, bem como os fatores que justificam a aplicação do referido instituto jurídico nestas relações. Apresentamos, ademais, uma análise da aplicabilidade dos punitive damages nos ordenamentos jurídicos de Common e Civil Law que mais influenciam o ordenamento jurídico nacional. / This study aims to examine whether the legal institution of punitive damages, coming from the Common Law, is applicable in national law, particularly in the context of consumer relations. This essay, besides presenting historical overview of punitive liability, explains how this responsibility is being accepted in Brazil and concludes that there are two main instruments of action. The first instrument is based on the increase of the compensatory damages to punish the defendant. The other one is the punitive damages. We believe that punitive damages were more suitable to the current consumer society in Brazil, because it represents a value that is set apart, with the purpose of punishing and evaluated according to the complexity of the case by the magistrate, giving dynamism and efficiency to the punishment. In this sense, we proposed rules that in our opinion would be most suitable for the application of punitive damages and setting of the punitive quantum under products liability, as well as factors warranting the application of this legal institution in these relationships. We present, moreover, analysis of the applicability of punitive damages in the legal systems of Common and Civil Law that most influence Brazilian Law.

Current issues of adhesive proceedings This thesis deals with current issues of adhesive proceedings. The thesis is divided into four chapters. The first chapter introduces the basic concepts essential for the definition of adhesive proceedings and related terms. These are primarily the definition of entities and parties to criminal proceedings, including the introduction of the institutes of harm as an overarching term, which includes damage, non-material damages and unjust enrichment. The first chapter also introduces the institute of bodily harm. The second chapter is devoted to the injured party, including a list of procedural rights and obligations that the injured party confers the Criminal Procedure Code and the injured party recognizes the law on victims of crime, if the injured party is also a victim under this law. The following subchapters are divided according to the rights that belong to all the injured parties and the rights that belong to the injured party, who is at the same time subject to the adhesive procedure. In the case of the injured party, the institute of consent of the injured party to criminal prosecution and representation of the injured party is also mentioned. In this part of the thesis, the current problems concerning the remuneration of the injured party's...

in English language International investment arbitrations are an upcoming and dynamic factor within the current global economy, and damages embody one of their main characteristics, the monetary aspect. International investment arbitrations through International Investment Agreements protect both parties involved, a state and an investor on another state, that is a party to such agreement. The need to award damages to harmed parties to a dispute is imminent, even though the value and valuation of damages are not articulated in Bilateral Investment Treaties. Therefore, it is vital to set standards and principles that tribunals could adhere to when awarding damages. On the other hand, it is important to allow discretion, since the valuation of damages depends on the particular circumstances of each case. Acknowledged rules are fundamental to prevent discrepancies and discriminations, particularly when awards in international investment arbitrations can reach millions or even billions of U.S.$. The aim of damages is to provide full reparation standard when harm has been done to a party. In order to provide compensation to a harmed party, the tribunal first needs to assess the value of the affected investment and from that calculate the damages using a valuation method. The thesis will examine the...

Univ., Diss.-2006--Jena, 2005. / Literaturverz. S. [622] - 644.

OPSOMMING Gebeurlikhede kan omskryf word as onsekere omstandighede van positiewe of negatiewe aard wat, onafhanklik van die verweerder se optrede en indien dit sou realiseer, waarskynlik 'n persoon se gesondheid, inkomste, verdienvermoë, lewenskwaliteit, lewensverwagting of onderhoudsafhanklikheid in die toekoms kan beïnvloed of in die verlede kon beïnvloed het en wat gevolglik op billike en realistiese wyse in ag geneem moet word ter bepaling van die skadevergoedingsbedrag. Die skadevergoedingsbedrag kan vanweë gebeurlikhede verminder of vermeerder word waar die eiser wel met `n oorwig van waarskynlikheid die volle omvang van die skade bewys het, maar die hof nie kon oortuig dat geen ander oorsaak die skade waarskynlik ook sou kon veroorsaak nie (sg "gebeurlikheids-aanpassings"). In gevalle waar die eiser nie die volle omvang van die skade op `n oorwig van waarskynlikheid kon bewys nie, kan die hof nogtans `n verminderde bedrag toeken op grond van die gebeurlikheid dat die skade wel waarskynlik in die toekoms kan realiseer (sg "gebeurlikheidstoekennings"). Die eiser moet getuienis voorlê van gebeurlikhede wat die skadevergoedingsbedrag sal verhoog, en die verweerder van gebeurlikhede wat die skadevergoedingsbedrag sal verlaag. Die waarskynlikheid dat die gebeurlikheid sal realiseer, moet deur die hof aan die hand van objektiewe maatstawwe en op grond van feitelike bewerings en logiese afleidings uit deskundige en ander getuienis in die vorm van `n waarskynlikheidsgraad van tussen vyf persent en tagtig persent uitgedruk word. Hipotetiese kousaliteit word deur die hof aangewend om gebeurlikhede op `n billike wyse in ag te neem en verwys na die kousale ketting van hipotetiese feite wat waarskynlik sou gerealiseer het indien die skadestigtende gebeurtenis nie plaasgevind het nie. Gebeurlikhede kan in twee kategorieë geklassifiseer word: Algemene gebeurlikhede wat gewoonlik in enige stadium by alle persone kan voorkom (bv vroeë dood, siekte ens) en spesifieke gebeurlikhede wat gewoonlik op spesifieke tydstippe by spesifieke individue kan voorkom (bv hertroue, egskeiding ens). Terwyl die hof geregtelik kennis behoort te kan neem van die invloed van algemene gebeurlikhede, behoort die hof hoofsaaklik op grond van ondersteunende getuienis van die invloed van spesifieke gebeurlikhede oortuig te word. Algemene gebeurlikheidsaanpassings is gewoonlik relatief laag (gemiddeld tien persent), terwyl gebeurlikheidsaanpassings vir spesifieke gebeurlikhede fluktueer (gewoonlik tussen vyf persent en vyftig persent), afhangende van die getuienis en omstandighede van die eiser. Gebeurlikheidstoekennings is gewoonlik laer as vyftig persent. SUMMARY Contingencies can be described as uncertain circumstances of a positive or negative nature which, independent of the defendant's conduct and if it should realise, would probably influence a person's health, income, earning capacity, quality of life, life expectancy or dependency on support in future or could have done so in the past, and which must consequently be taken into account in a fair and realistic manner in the quantification of damages. Contingencies can be used to increase or reduce damages in circumstances where the plaintiff succeeded in proving the full loss on a preponderance of probability, but could not convince the court that there was no probability that any other cause could also have given rise to the loss (so-called "contingency adjustments"). In circumstances where the plaintiff could not prove the full loss on a preponderance of probability, the court can nevertheless award a reduced amount on the basis of the contingency that loss could probably realise in future (so-called "contingency allowances"). The plaintiff must adduce evidence of contingencies that can increase damages, and the defendant of contingencies that can reduce damages. The degree of probability that the contingency will realise, must be expressed by the court as a percentage of between five percent and eighty percent, in view of objective measures and on the basis of factual allegations and logical deductions derived from expert and other evidence. Hypothetical causation assists the court in taking account of contingencies in a fair manner and refers to the causal link of hypothetical events which would probably have realised if the damage-causing event did not occur. Contingencies can be classified into two categories: General contingencies that usually can be present in the lives of all people at any point in time (eg early death, sickness, etc) and specific contingencies that usually are present in the lives of specific individuals at specific times (eg remarriage, divorce, etc). While the court should be able to take legal notice of the influence of general contingencies, the court should be convinced of the influence of specific contingencies primarily on the basis of supporting evidence. General contingency adjustments are usually relatively low (on average ten per cent), while contingency adjustments for specific contingencies fluctuate (usually between five per cent and fifty per cent), depending on the evidence and circumstances of the plaintiff. Contingency allowances are usually lower than fifty per cent. / Jurisprudence / LL.D