Some Civil Law Concepts of Non‑Pecuniary Harm in Europe

The article is aimed at comparing different concepts of individual right protection. The author dwells on two theories of claims for moral harm. They are the rebuttable presumption relied on in the EU, and the need to provide evidence of harm under Russian law. In addition to reviewing several doctrinal works, higher courts rulings and the European views on the topic, the author focuses on the question of the relationship between moral and reputational harm, noting here that not all of the identified doctrinal concepts correspond to strict legislative terminology. For example, information injurious to honor, dignity, or business reputation may not cause harm (save for moral harm) but is associated with the occurrence of damages. It seems to be the first work advocating the thesis that damages can be recovered instead of non-pecuniary harm. The Russian tort law concept bares some features of Soviet tradition with strict division between reimbursement of harm and recovery of losses. It was allowed only when reimbursement in kind grew impossible. That was later transferred on to judicial discretion to determine the right means of legal protection. The formula that recovery of losses is a substitute of compensation of any harm had been set forth in Civil Code serving as a legal basis to sue for losses in lieu of moral damage.

1. Vorobev VV. Institut kompensatsii moralnogo vreda v rossiyskom grazhdanskom prave [Institute of Compensation for Moral Damage in Russian Civil Law]. St. Petersburg; 2008. (In Russ.).

2. Malein N.S. Okhrana prav lichnosti sovetskim zakonom [Protection of personal rights by the Soviet law]. Moscow; 1985. (In Russ.).

3. Sebok AJ. Shtrafnye ubytki v Soedinennykh Shtatakh [Punitive damages in the United States]. In: Koziol H, Wilcox V, editors. Shtrafnye ubytki: perspektivy obshchego prava i grazhdanskogo prava (deliktnoe i strakhovoe pravo, tom 25 [Punitive Damages: Perspectives of Common Law and Civil Law (Tort and Insurance Law, Volume 25)]. Springer; 2009. (In Russ.).

4. Smirnov VT, Sobchak AA. Obshchee uchenie o deliktnykh obyazatelstvakh v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave: uchebnoe posobie [General Doctrine on Tort Liabilities in the Soviet Civil Law]. Leningrad; 1983. (In Russ.).

5. Ulbashev AKh. Osushchestvlenie i zashchita lichnykh prav [Implementation and protection of personal rights]. Zakonodatelstvo [Legislation]. 2017;9:8-13. (In Russ.).

6. Yagelnitskiy AA. K voprosu o nerazryvnoy svyazi prava s lichnostyu: preemstvo v prave trebovat vozmeshcheniya moralnogo vreda i vreda, prichinennogo zhizni ili zdorovyu [On the issue of the inseparable connection of law with personality: Succession in the right to demand compensation for moral harm and harm caused to life or health]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review]. 2013; 1:13. 2013;2:60-65. (In Russ.).

7. Perillo J. Moscow: Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts: The Black Letter Text and a Review. Fordham L. Rev. 1994;63:281. Available from: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol63/iss2/1 [cited 2019 December 26].

8. Principles of European Tort Law. 2005. Available from: http://www.egtl.org/docs/PETL.pdf [cited 2019 December 25].

9. Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). Munich; 2009.

10. The Principles of European Contract Law. 2002. Part I, II, III. Available from: https://www.jus.uio.no/lm/eu.contract.principles.parts.1.to.3.2002/portrait.pdf [cited 2019 December 25].