Material satisfaction of immaterial loss in Czech private law (summary) The purpose of my thesis is to analyze the moral and material satisfaction in Czech civil law. I wanted to provide a deep interpretation of these institutes which represent an important phenomenon in our time. The importance of protection of personality increased in the 20th century in connection with development of human and personal rights. In last years also according to mass media and global society. My aim was not only to give the interpretation of basic institutes and instruments of protection of personality but also to show more extensive circumstances of this topic, set into relevant judicial cases and European aspects. I quit the part regarding constitutional law which creates a basis for another law adjustment and other basic grounds because I have already dealt with them in my previous dissertations. Chapter one attempts to provide an introduction to the topic of my dissertation giving overview of all chapters. Chapter two and three are denoted to the basic institutions relating to the protection of personality, moral and material satisfaction. They show the meaning of the institutions and also give readers the introduction to these problems. Chapter four provides an important introduction to the history of protection of...

Univ., Diss.--Köln, 2004.

為了專利法制現代化，美國、中國大陸與台灣均進行專利修法，並修訂損害賠償計算。本文試圖以三者修法目的為思考評析損害賠償計算之修訂，並類型化分析三者相關規範。本文探討美國司法實務所發展的分攤法則及整體市場價值法則，而在建立更有效率之專利制度的目標下，美國專利法第284條並不適合納入上述法則。本文歸納美國專利懲罰性損害賠償制度之三種認定故意的標準。第一，傳統的故意侵害論，Underwater Devices案「充分注意之確切義務」之標準為故意侵害設立了一個較低的門檻，比較類似過失。第二，Seagate案的故意侵害論，為客觀的輕率。第三，專利改革的故意侵害論，三種故意樣態下之客觀的輕率；但可能因此限制法官的裁量權。中國大陸在提高自主創新能力與建設創新型國家之知識產權戰略目標下，第三次專利法修正將於2009年施行。新專利法第65條將現行最高人民法院司法解釋規定的定額賠償提高到專利法層次，且提高法定額度。從訴訟成本考量，由法院定額不失為較經濟的方法；然而，此方法亦有可能會有因非根據證據而落入主觀判斷賠償數額的缺點。新專利法第65條並明訂賠償數額還應當包括權利人為制止侵權行為所支付的合理開支，惟其計量方法仍不明確。雖然新專利法沒有納入懲罰性損害賠償，於提高法定賠償額度與加重其他相關民事與行政責任之配套修改下，新專利法有提高侵權人金錢負擔的效果，應有較大的嚇阻功能，進而鼓勵創新。台灣在因應國內科技政策與國際規範發展，及配合智慧財產法院設立的背景下，提出專利法修正草案，其中建議現行專利法第85條新增「以相當於實施該發明專利所得收取之權利金數額為其損害」規定。然而，針對權利金的合理性及是否以合理權利金作為補償底限，修正草案並沒有明確規定。此外，修正草案建議刪除懲罰性損害賠償，以回歸我國民事損害賠償制度。台灣專利侵害民事訴訟的成本與賠償金額並不高，也沒有敗訴方負擔對方律師費用的規定，在專利侵害全面除罪化之後，懲罰性損害賠償對侵害人可能形成一種「實質上額外的風險」，而非「僅是一種商業上的成本」，因而有其一定的功能意義。以專利法促進產業發展的目的考量，若沒有相關配套措施，實可考慮繼續保留現行懲罰性損害賠償制度。 / For modernization of patent laws, the United States, China and Taiwan are undergoing patent reform, each amending its damages provision. This thesis categorized forms of damages calculation in three countries, and tried to analyze its amendment from the perspective of patent reform in each country. This thesis analyzed the possible impact of specifying the apportionment rule and entire market value rule in Section 284, 35 United State Code. In addition, three standards of willful infringement with enhanced damages were concluded. First, the traditional willfulness doctrine in Underwater Devices case is the affirmative duty of due care which sets a lower threshold of willing infringement that is more akin to negligence. Second, willfulness in Seagate case requires at least an objective recklessness. Third, willfulness in Patent Reform Act of 2009 requires an objective recklessness in three different conditions; such proposal may restrict the discretion of the court. With national intellectual property strategy to improve the domestic capacity of innovation and to build an innovative country, the third amendment to Patent Act of the People's Republic of China becomes in effect in 2009. Article 65 in the new Chinese Patent Act codifies the statutory damages in the range of RMB 10,000 to 1,000,000, compared to the current range of RMB 5,000 to 500,000 provided by the Supreme People’s Court judicial interpretation. In the perspective of litigation costs, statutory damages award may be a more economic approach but subjective judgment could have implication caused by lack of factual evidence for damages calculation. Article 65 also codifies that the amount of compensation shall include reasonable cost for ceasing patent infringement by the right holder, however, how to measure the reasonable cost is not clear. Although the new Chinese Patent Act does not include punitive damages, the maximum statutory damages, other related civil liability and administrative penalty are increased. Such amendments may increase the pecuniary burden of the infringer and expect to lead to more deterrent effect on patent infringement and encourage innovation. In the context of international regulation change, national technology policy change and establishment of professional Intellectual Property Court, comprehensive review of Taiwanese Patent Act is ongoing. The proposed bill adds “equivalent amount of royalty for implementing the patent invention as damages” into Article 85 of current Taiwanese Patent Act. However, it is not clearly codified that a reasonable royalty must be justified and such royalty calculation is to set a floor for damages award. The proposed bill abandons punitive damages for willful infringement. In such proposal, the result of willful infringement may not be a substantial additional risk but only a cost of doing business, because the litigation cost and damages award are not so high, and there is no attorney fee award or criminal penalty in Taiwanese patent regulation system. Hence, reconsideration of retaining punitive damages is suggested.

No description available.

La situation actuelle des règles relatives à la responsabilité civile de l'entrepreneur pour les dommages environnementaux provoqués par l’exploitation offshore d’hydrocarbure et le transport de ce produit par des navires pétroliers, démontre que le législateur a été de plus en plus concerné par la question de la santé environnementale. Cependant, il y a beaucoup de lacunes dans les lois nationales qui peuvent entraîner une incertitude juridique considérable pour l'entrepreneur et en même temps, ne pas fournir une protection adéquate à l'environnement et à l’homme. L’étude comparée des systèmes juridiques démontre qu’il est extrêmement important que les pays qui sont exposés aux périls des marées noires, notamment ceux qui exploitent des hydrocarbures dans la mer, disposent d’un fonds spécial d’indemnisation pour garantir et faciliter la restauration de l’environnement et le payement des indemnisations aux victimes. Outre la protection de l’environnement et des droits des citoyens, le fonds offre aussi la possibilité d’application des cas exceptés et de la limitation de responsabilité. Le fonds serait utilisé pour couvrir les préjudices au-delà de la limite de responsabilité de l’entrepreneur ou dans les cas où la responsabilité de celui-ci est écartée par un cas excepté. / The current situation of the rules governing the liability of the entrepreneur for environmental damage caused by offshore oil exploration and by the transportation of this product by oil tankers, shows that the legislator is more concerned with environmental health issues. However, there are many gaps in national legislations that can lead to considerable legal uncertainty for the responsible parties. While, at the same time it does not provide adequate protection for the environment and to human beings. The comparative study of legals systems shows the importance that countries that are exposed to the dangers of oil spills, especially those exploiting oil in the sea, to have a special indemnisation fund to guarantee and facilitate environmental restoration and payment of compensation to victims. Besides protecting the environment and citizens' rights, the fund also offers the possibility of applying the defenses of liability and limitation of liability. The funds would be used to cover the losses beyond the limit of liability of the responsible partie or when the responsibility for the accident is ruled out by a liability defense cause.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:27:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Maria de Fatima Zanetti Barbosa e Santos.pdf: 1485924 bytes, checksum: 8d745eddc5c897aba4ef9ada960a53b5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-06-02 / This piece of work has the intent of making a critical rereading of the requisites adopted by the major part of the doctrine and jurisprudence on fixation of the value for reparation when it comes to punitive damages. An analysis of those requisites was made with the purpose of showing that some of them are obsolete due to the arrival ofthe Federal Constitution in 1988 and that others should have their application restricted to the repairing of punitive damages, since their origin is and they are connected in the matter ofvalue to the restitutory Law. From the analysis conducted, we conclude that: can not be applied requisites that taper with the restitutory Law; that the punitive damages' purpose protects superior value of alI society' s interest that superposes the material values; that the parts find themselves in situation of inequity when it comes to work contract; that work is essential good for workers and the entire society; and that is why specific requisites are a necessity, as well as the application of the punitive-pedagogic aspect, reaching the prohibitive function of the Law, which, materializes through significant values for reparation / Este trabalho tem como objetivo fazer uma releitura crítica dos requisitos adotados pela maior parte da doutrina e da jurisprudência para fixação do valor da reparação do dano moral. Fez-se uma análise desses requisitos com o intuito de demonstrar que alguns estão superados pelo advento da Constituição Federal de 1988 e outros devem ter sua aplicação restrita à reparação dos danos materiais, eis que oriundos e guardam conexão axiológica com o direito restituitório. Da análise procedida concluiu-se que: não podem ser aplicados requisitos que se afinam com o direito restituitório; que o instituto do dano moral protege valor superior de interesse de toda a sociedade que se sobrepõe aos valores materiais; que as partes encontram-se em situação de desigualdade no contrato de trabalho; que o trabalho é bem essencial aos trabalhadores e à toda sociedade; por isso é que há necessidade de requisitos específicos e de aplicação do caráter pedagógico-punitivo, com alcance da função proibitiva do Direito, o que se materializa através de valores significativos para a reparação

The thesis deals with monetary remedies in intellectual property infringement suits, focusing on industrial property rights. On the background of enacting of the czech Act number 221/2006 Sb. which implements the directive 2004/48/EC of the European parliament and of the Council, the thesis compares these two texts with each other and also with the proposal for the directive KOM(2003) 46 final in their relevant parts. By doing this, it evaluates the directive and the czech act as the directive's implementation. This evaluation represents the secondary aims of the thesis. Comparison, analysis of factual articles and interviews with relevant experts practicising in the area show that by setting the damages as double the "customary" royalties, the czech Act in his § 5 ods. 2 represents a sanction, which confirms the hypothesis of the prevailance of an analogy between the czech provison and the punitive damages in american law. This fact creates scope for the hypothesis of existance of further analogies, the verification of which is the central aim of the thesis. Therefore, the second part of the thesis analyzes american provisions of the United States Code concerning copyright, trademark and patent law, and related caselaw. This is compared both to the directive and the proposal for it, moreover to the czech copyright Act number 121/2000 Sb. and in particular to the czech Act number 221/2006 Sb. The third part supplements the analysis of relevant czech court decisions. The second and third part identify similar and distinct elements of the provisions and reveal analogies in seemingly different institutes. Differences are spotted in the construct used to achieve the punitive function, furthermore between the terms "customary royalty" and "reasonable royalty" and also between the terms "bezdôvodné obohatenie", "infringer's profits" and "unjust enrichment". Conversely, an analogy is identified between the discretionary power of american courts to increase proven damages or determine statutory damages and the czech institute of "primerané zadosťučinenie" (appropriate satisfaction). The prevailance of prohibition of double recovery is another existing analogy between the american and czech law.

懲罰性賠償金係透過課予加害人超出被害人損害之賠償，達成制裁加害人，並嚇阻加害人以及其他行為人從事相類行為。該制度係源自於英國，並自英國傳遞自美國，並於美國廣泛盛行。懲罰性賠償金制度具有懲罰、嚇阻、設立典範之功能、執行法律等功能，惟其係私法下之概念，卻帶有懲罰目的之公法性質，跨越兩種領域使其極具爭議性。 消費者保護法第51條將英美法之懲罰性賠償金制度引進，致使我國民刑分立之法體系產生模糊地帶。關於我國實務對於懲罰性賠償金之態度，得以自其就消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋觀察。然實務就要件之解釋未盡統一，如此將導致當事人無所適從。 2015年6月17日修正之消費者保護法第51條，明確將「重大過失」納入規定，顯見立法者對於企業經營者採取更為嚴格之態度。如此修正固解決長久以來「過失」是否應限縮於「重大過失」之爭議，惟關於消費者保護法第51條其他要件之解釋，仍有尚未解決之問題。 觀諸消費者保護法第51條之要件，「依本法所提之訴訟」於「本法」及「訴訟」即存在寬嚴不同之解釋。另關於該條文之責任主體，企業經營者是否就其受僱人之懲罰性賠償金責任負責，又企業經營者間之責任關係為何，皆有釐清之必要。請求權主體之部分，消費者保護法第7條規定之「第三人」並未出現於第51條懲罰性賠償金之規定中，產生消費者以外之「第三人」是否為請求權主體之爭議。另外，被害人死亡時懲罰性賠償金之歸屬，亦為立法者制定該條文規定時，未審慎思考致生之法律漏洞。究竟被害人死亡時，應由間接被害人抑或繼承人請求懲罰性賠償金，無論如何結論之擇採，皆有賴縝密之法律邏輯推演。最後於懲罰性賠償金之計算，2015年6月17日明確懲罰輕過失行為以及提高倍數上限之修正，其妥適性為何；又消費者保護法第51條規定之計算基礎「損害額」之意義、計算時酌定之因素、與有過失之考量等，皆有待解決。本文以整理消費者保護法第51條懲罰性賠償金適用上之爭議，並嘗試透過學說及實務見解之分析歸納出合理之結論，並就結論之推演，參考部分日本法學說，期能對於消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋提供另一種思考方向。 / Punitive damages are extra monetary burdens which make the offender to pay more than those the injured has lost, in order to deter the offender and other offenders from behaving the same. The doctrine of punitive damages is originated from England and swept America. Punitive damages have the functions of punishment, deterrence, setting examples to the society, law enforcement and so on. However, it is controversial that the doctrine of punitive damages is the concept under civil law, but with the function of punishment, which makes the doctrine in the borderland between public and private law. Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act is the doctrine of punitive damages in Taiwan, which causes a gray area among the separation of civil law and criminal law, and makes Art. 51 controversial. It is not difficult to know the attitude of the judges toward punitive damages by understanding the explanation of Art. 51. But there is no consistency in the explanation of each element of Art. 51, which makes the Article bewildering. On June 17, 2015, gross negligence has been added to the amended Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, which shows the strict attitude of the legislators toward the business operators. This amendment solves the problem that whether negligence should be limited to gross negligence or not, but there still are other issues about Art. 51 Which should be solved. Among Art. 51, “this law” and “litigation” in the element of “in a litigation brought in accordance with this law” are explained in both strict and easing ways. About the subject of the legal responsibility of Art. 51, whether the business operators should be responsible for the act of their employees, and whether business operators should be jointly and severally liable for punitive damages are issues should be discussed. About the claimers of Art. 51, comparing Art. 7 to Art. 51, we can find that “third party” isn’t showed in Art. 51, which brings up to the issue that whether third party other than consumer can claim for punitive damages. Also, who can claim for punitive damages when the victim dies is an important issue. The legislators did not think of this kind of situation, which caused legislation imperfection among Art. 51. Whether the indirect victim or the successor should be the claimer of punitive damages in this kind of situation should be explained carefully and logically. Last but not least, in related to the calculation of punitive damages, the amendment of Art. 51 in June, 17, 2015 specifies that objective negligence and subjective negligence should be punished and the maximum limit on the amount of damages has been raised. Whether the amendment is proper or not, and whether “the amount of damages” should be confined to “property damages” should be clarified. It is also necessary to figure out the considerations of determination of the amount. Whether comparative negligence should be considered while deciding the amount of punitive damages is also controversial, which should be investigated prudently. This thesis will focus on Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act and the issues about it. This thesis will analyze those issues according to the theories and opinions of practice in Taiwan. American theories and Japanese theories will also be discussed in this thesis in order to solve the problems, and to provide a different view of Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Thèse réalisée en cotutelle avec la faculté de droit de l'Université d'Orléans en France. / Menée pour la première fois, l’étude des différentes dimensions de la prévention (la précaution, la cessation et la dissuasion) est rendue possible par la découverte des sanctions préventives en droit de la responsabilité civile. Les sanctions préventives sont nombreuses en jurisprudence en vue de prévenir le dommage à différents stades : avant la réalisation du fait dommageable (mesure de prévention et de précaution), au cours de sa réalisation (mesure de cessation), après sa réalisation (dommages et intérêts provisionnels) et après sa reconnaissance juridique (dommages et intérêts punitifs). Concevoir une notion de sanction préventive devient alors essentiel pour comprendre les évolutions contemporaines du droit. Définie comme l’effet de droit résultant d’une interprétation de la norme susceptible d’être violée, la sanction préventive démontre que l’action introduite précocement par le justiciable peut aboutir. Si ces évolutions bouleversent les conditions classiques de la responsabilité, elles s’expliquent en revanche par une représentation de la responsabilité civile à partir de ses effets. Sous l’angle des effets, l’existence des sanctions préventives met en lumière une mise en effet judiciaire des normes dans une finalité préventive. La mise en effet est une opération effectuée en pratique par le juge entre l’interprétation et l’exécution de la norme. Ce temps de la mise en effet est celui durant lequel le juge choisit l’effet de droit apte à résoudre le litige. Or, le choix de la sanction par le juge n’est pas entièrement libre. En effet, les sanctions préventives naissent d’un besoin sécuritaire. Cette effectivité désirée par les justiciables exerce une influence sur la mise en effet de la norme par le juge par l’introduction précoce de l’action en justice. Qualifier les manifestations préventives de la responsabilité civile de sanctions juridiques naissant d’une opération judiciaire de mise en effet des normes permet ainsi de mieux rendre compte de la pratique du droit au sein d’une théorie renouvelée du procès. / The discovery of Preventive Sanction in the Law of civil responsibility is made possible by studying, for the first time, the various aspects of prevention (deterrence, cessation, precaution). To prevent harm at different stages of realization, case law makes a broad use of Preventive Sanction: before harm is done (precautionary and preventive measures), while it is done (stop and cease order), after it is done (temporary damages) and after is has been legally recognized (punitive damages). Crafting a notion of Preventive Sanction becomes then central to the understanding of contemporary legal developments. Preventive Sanction defined as the legal effects arising from the construction of a norm which might be broken, show that early action brought by a plaintiff can be successful. The transformation of traditional requirements for responsibility by these developments can be explained by reframing civil responsibility from its effects. This perspective allows for the preventive goal of judicial effectuation to be brought to light by the existence of Preventive Sanction. In practice, effectuation is performed by the judge and takes place between the construction and implementation of legal norms. The moment of effectuation occurs when the judge selects the legal effects destined to resolve a dispute. However, the judge is not entirely free when choosing a sanction. Preventive sanction originates from a need of security. Through early introduction of legal action, effectivity sought by plaintiffs impacts judicial effectuation of legal norms. The practice of law, within a renewed theory of judicial action, is better accounted for by reframing “preventive expression” of the Law of civil responsibility as “legal sanction” arising from the judicial effectuation of legal norms.

Les réclamations pour dommages punitifs en vertu de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne se multiplient depuis plusieurs années devant les tribunaux. Pour être accueillie, cette réclamation implique la démonstration d’une atteinte illicite et intentionnelle à un droit ou une liberté protégé par cette charte. Les recours en responsabilité peuvent faire l’objet d’une couverture d’assurance. Or, le Code civil du Québec prévoit spécifiquement que l’assureur n’est pas tenu de couvrir la faute intentionnelle de l’assuré. Est-ce à dire que l’assureur n’a pas d’obligation envers son assuré lorsque des dommages punitifs sont réclamés? Il s’agit donc de déterminer si le concept de faute intentionnelle et celui d’atteinte illicite et intentionnelle sont des concepts qui s’équivalent ou qu’il est nécessaire de distinguer. Pour cette analyse, ces deux concepts seront abordés en profondeur. Il sera question de l’origine de ces deux notions, de leurs fondements et de leur interprétation pour finalement définir ces termes le plus précisément possible. Ces définitions permettront d’opposer ces deux notions et de déterminer au final qu’il existe plusieurs éléments qui différencient ces concepts, notamment à l’égard de l’intention requise, faisant en sorte qu’ils ne peuvent être assimilés. Cette conclusion aura un impact certain sur les obligations de l’assureur de défendre l’assuré et d’indemniser la victime pour ses dommages compensatoires lorsqu’il existe une réclamation en dommages punitifs et, par conséquent, l’assureur ne pourra faire reposer son refus de défendre ou d’indemniser sur la seule base de la preuve d’une atteinte illicite et intentionnelle. / Claims for punitive damages have proliferated over the years before the courts. For such claim to be granted, it is required to demonstrate an unlawful and intentional interference with any right or freedom protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Liability claims can be covered by insurance. However, the Civil Code of Québec specifically provides that the insurer is never bound to indemnify the insured’s intentional fault. Does this mean that the insurer has no obligation towards its insured when punitive damages are sought? The question is thus whether the concept of intentional fault and of unlawful and intentional interference are concepts that are equivalent or that need to be distinguished. For this analysis, the two concepts will be adressed in depth. The origin of these two concepts, their founding principles and their interpretation will be discussed to ultimately define these terms as precisely as possible. These definitions will then help to compare these two concepts and determine in the end that there are several elements that differentiate these concepts, particularly in regard to the required intent, with the result that they can not be assimilated. This conclusion will have a definite impact on the insurer’s obligations to defend the insured and to indemnify the victim for compensatory damages if punitive damages are also sought. Therefore, the insurer cannot justify its refusal to defend or indemnify solely on the basis of the evidence of an unlawful and intentional interference.