Compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from a criminal charge

Under established binding case law (Plenum of the Supreme Court Decree No. 4 of 23.12.1968 and Interpretative Judgment No. 3 of 22.04.2005 of the General Assembly of the Civil College of the Supreme Court of Cassation), and the Supreme Court of Cassation’s decisions applying Article 52 of the Obligations and Contracts Act under former Article 290 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, fairness under Article 52 is not an abstract concept. To assess non-pecuniary damage the court must consider the objective circumstances of the individual case: the type, nature, intensity and duration of the harm, compared with the claimant’s condition beforehand. In claims under Article 2(1), point 3 of the State and Municipal Liability for Damage Act, relevant factors include the gravity of the charge, whether it concerned one offence or several distinct offences, and whether the claimant was acquitted or the proceedings discontinued on all or only some charges. The duration of the proceedings matters, including whether they took a reasonable time; so do the imposition and nature of any measure of restraint. The court considers how all this affected the claimant: whether their health deteriorated, in what way and to what extent, what they experienced, and the overall impact of the prosecution on their family, friendships and professional life, as well as public reaction. Compensation under Article 2(1), point 3 is assessed as a single sum for all non-pecuniary damage caused by the wrong. The harm must be assessed in concrete terms. The sum must suffice to make good the harm actually suffered, having regard to the generally accepted standard of fairness and the particular case, and must not exceed what is sufficient and fair for that purpose. Harm differs from case to case. Some factors may be similar or even identical in kind or degree across cases, but it is extremely rare for all of them to coincide.

This article is not a legal opinion or advice on a particular situation or person. The author makes no claim to cover compensation under the State and Municipal Liability for Damage Act exhaustively. For assistance in a similar case, consult a lawyer practising in tort law (from the Latin delictum, meaning a wrong or offence) and compensation claims.