Restitutio ad integrum

Restitutio ad integrum,orrestitutio in integrum,is aLatin termthat means "restoration to original condition". It is one of the primary guiding principles behind the awarding ofdamagesincommon law negligenceclaims.

InEuropean patent law,it also refers to a means of redress available to an applicant or patentee who has failed to meet a time limit despite exercising all due care.

In ancientRoman law,it was a specific method ofpraetorintervention in an otherwise-valid legal action that was viewed as especially unjust or harmful.

Common law negligence claims

Restitutio ad integrumis one of the primary guiding principles behind the awarding ofdamagesincommon law negligenceclaims. The general rule, as the principle implies, is that the amount of compensation awarded should put the successful plaintiff in the position that would have been the case if the tortious action had not been committed. Thus, the plaintiff should clearly be awarded damages fordirect expensessuch as medical bills and property repairs and the loss offuture earningsattributable to the injury, which often involves difficult speculation on the future career and promotion prospects.

Although monetary compensation cannot be directly equated with physical deprivation, it is generally accepted that compensation should also be awarded forloss of amenities,which reflects the decrease in expected standard of living from any injury suffered andpain and suffering.Damages awards in those categories are justified by therestitutioprinciple as monetary compensation provides the most practicable way of redressing the deprivation caused by physical injury.

Cases

Graham v. Egan15 La. Ann. 97, 98 (1860). In considering whether to give the mortgagor money damages or restore the property itself, the court said in regard to restitution: "He can restore the property itself, and place the [mortgagor] in the same condition he would have occupied if he had not been harassed with an unfounded demand. This is precisely what is meant by the restitution in integrum. If there be ground for restitution at all, there is the same ground for a complete restitution, a restitution in integrum".
Emile Erlanger v The New Sombrero Phosphate Company(1877–78) L.R. 3 App. Cas. 1218
Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co(1880) 5 App Cas 25,39, per Lord Blackburn, compensation should be "that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation".

Patent law

The expressionrestitutio in integrumis also used inpatentlaw, namely in theEuropean Patent Convention(EPC), and refers to a means of redress available to an applicant or patentee who has failed to meet a time limit in spite of exercising "all due care required by the circumstances".^[1]If the request forrestitutio in integrumis accepted, the applicant or patentee is re-established in its rights, as if the time limit had been duly met.

According to decision G 1/86 of theEnlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office,other parties such asopponentsare not barred from therestitutio in integrumby principle. For instance, if an opponent fails to file the statement of grounds for appeal in spite of all due care, after having duly filed the notice of appeal,restitutioremedies are available to them.^[2]

Ancient Roman law

Restitutio in integrumhad a distinct meaning in ancientRoman lawthat differed from its common law counterpart. The core concept of reversing to original condition was preserved, butrestitutio in integrumwas a specific method ofpraetorintervention in an otherwise-valid legal action that was viewed as especially unjust or harmful. It was an extraordinary measure designed to protect from arbitrary application of law, which Romans viewed very unfavorably (expressed in the Latinmaximsummum ius, summa iniuria"the greatest law is the greatest injury" ). As such, it was anultimum remedium( "ultimate remedy" ), which was used only when all other avenues of protection from injustice were expanded. Examples of situations in whichrestitutio in integrummight have been employed were harmful legal actions undertaken by those below 25 years of age because of their inexperience and legal actions undertaken with erroneous assumptions (error) or in fear (metus) of another's threat (vis).^[3]

References

^Article 122 EPC
^G 1/86 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office
^Kolańczyk, Kazimierz (2007).Prawo rzymskie(5th ed.). Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer. pp. 175–176.ISBN 978-83-7334-031-2.

[1] Article 122 EPC

[2] G 1/86 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office

[roman-3] Kolańczyk, Kazimierz (2007).Prawo rzymskie(5th ed.). Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer. pp. 175–176.ISBN 978-83-7334-031-2.

[1]

[2]

[3]