Fair compensation under the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act (ZODOV)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
According to the well-established binding case law (Plenum of the Supreme Court Decree No. 4 of 23.12.1968 and Interpretative Decision No. 3 of 22.04.2005 of the General Assembly of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation), as well as the Supreme Court of Cassation’s case law developed under Article 290 et seq. (repealed) of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning the application of Article 52 of the Obligations and Contracts Act, the concept of \u201cfairness\u201d within the meaning of Article 52 is not abstract. It requires an assessment of a number of specific circumstances objectively present in each individual case, which the court deciding the case must take into account when determining compensation for non-pecuniary damage. These circumstances include the type, nature, intensity and duration of the harm, considered against the claimant’s condition before it occurred.<\/span><\/p>\n Specifically, in claims under Article 2(1)(3) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act (ZODOV), the legally relevant circumstances for determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage include: the seriousness of the charge; whether it concerns one or several separate offences; whether the claimant was acquitted or the criminal proceedings were discontinued in respect of all or only some charges; the duration of the criminal proceedings, including whether they were conducted within or exceeded a reasonable time; and whether a measure of restraint was imposed and, if so, its type. Also relevant is how all this affected the person: whether their health deteriorated, to what extent and in what way; their specific experiences; and, generally, the overall impact of the criminal prosecution on their life, family, friends, profession, public reputation and so forth. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the tort under Article 2(1)(3) of ZODOV must be assessed as a single overall amount covering all the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of that tort. In this sense, the non-pecuniary damage can be specifically assessed, and the monetary compensation awarded must correspond to the need to remedy it. Its amount must be sufficient to redress the harm, in accordance with the generally accepted criterion of fairness under Article 52 of the Obligations and Contracts Act and the particular circumstances of the case. At the same time, compensation must not exceed the sufficient and fair amount required to compensate for the specific non-pecuniary damage actually suffered. The damage differs in every individual case: some of the above criteria and circumstances relevant to the amount payable may be similar or even the same, in type or quantitative terms, when different cases are compared, but they will very rarely be entirely identical.<\/p>\n Furthermore, compensation for damage caused by an unlawful charge also covers the harm caused by detention on remand imposed lawfully under procedural rules, or by preliminary detention, where that detention relates to the specific charge. Damage caused by such detention is compensated under Article 2(1)(3) of ZODOV where an investigation directly targeting the accused constitutes a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, including before the person has been formally charged with a specific offence by an act of the prosecution service<\/em>. See Supreme Court of Cassation Judgment No. 254 of 17.12.2015 in civil case No. 1902\/2015.<\/p>\n If you have been detained, charged and not convicted, or have suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of an unlawful act or omission by an authority or institution, you should consult a lawyer about the possibilities of obtaining compensation.
\n