The Supreme Court called on not to “push” issues of compensation for crimes into separate proceedings

Home / Complaints, courts, consumer rights / Litigation

Back

Published: September 29, 2018

Reading time: 9 min

763

Moral harm refers to physical or moral suffering that was inflicted on a person and violated his personal non-property rights or encroached on his intangible benefits: dignity, honor, business reputation, personal integrity, etc. This definition is given by the Civil Code.

Legal regulation and the concept of moral harm
Grounds for claiming compensation
Criteria and calculation of the amount of compensation in judicial practice
Judicial practice on compensation for moral damage

While in the West, compensation for moral damage is an established practice, in Russia such legal disputes are not yet very common.

Legal regulation and the concept of moral harm

The concept of moral damage and the key principles of its recovery are given in Art. 151 of the Civil Code. According to Art. 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, compensation for moral damage is compensation for the suffering of a person caused by:

Harm to life and health.
Disclosure of personal privacy (for example, as a result of unlawful disclosure of a diagnosis).
Encroachment on the integrity of housing (for example, as a result of the work of operatives during an illegal search).
Other cases given in the law.

In Art. 150 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides signs of intangible benefits that may be subject to harm requiring compensation. This is their inseparability from the personality of an individual and the absence of an economic component.

The legislator included the life and health of individuals, the inviolability of their home and private life, independence in movement and determination of place of residence, the name of an individual and his copyrights as such benefits.

In addition to general civil law, when recovering damages, the norms of special law (for example, the Labor Code) may be taken into account.

Employees dismissed from work often apply for compensation for moral damage as part of labor disputes.

According to Art. 237 of the Labor Code, moral damage in this case refers to unlawful actions or inaction of the employer, which led to a violation of the employee’s interests within the framework of labor relations. Art. 394 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides for the direct possibility of collecting compensation for moral damage in case of illegal dismissal of an employee.

That is why almost every labor law claim is accompanied by a claim for compensation for harm.

The issue of compensation for non-material damage is most often raised not only in labor disputes, but also in cases of consumer protection and personal injury.

The possibility of recovering moral damages is provided for in Art. 15 Federal Law “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”. Filing such a claim is allowed if the reason was the guilty actions of the seller and the performer, which violated the rights of the consumer.

Compensation for moral damage is a measure of civil liability. Recovery is carried out in accordance with the rules of civil proceedings, even if the damage was caused as part of an administrative or criminal offense.

A claim for compensation for moral damage can be brought during proceedings in a criminal case , when considering cases of collection of material damage, and as an independent case.

Evidence of suffering caused to a person may include certificates from emergency rooms, extracts from medical records, expert opinions, testimonies of relatives and victims; documents that confirm an appeal to a neurologist or psychiatrist and his conclusion.

Official website of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation prohibited the courts from arbitrarily reducing the amount of compensation for moral damage: the legislator did not provide thresholds for the amount of damages to be recovered, therefore it is the courts who are tasked with assessing all the nuances of a certain situation, but at the same time the court must explain its position. If the judge decides to significantly reduce the amount of compensation compared to the plaintiff’s demands, then he is obliged to give reasons for his decision and explain why he considers the assigned amount acceptable and reasonable, the highest authority emphasizes.

The crux of the matter

A dispute between a resident of the capital and the Ministry of Internal Affairs about compensation for moral damage caused by a crime has reached the highest authority: in the duty station of one of the St. Petersburg police departments, a drunken criminal investigation officer accidentally shot her son.

The plaintiff insisted on collecting 4 million rubles, but the Zamoskvoretsky court reduced the compensation to 150 thousand rubles, and the Moscow City Court supported this decision.

At the same time, the courts found that the death of her son certainly caused the applicant deep moral suffering. Taking into account the cohabitation of the plaintiff with her son, the presence of a young daughter with the deceased, who was the only parent of the child and whose guardian is now the applicant, the court still found it possible to determine the amount of compensation of 150 thousand rubles as sufficient.

Position of the Armed Forces

When determining the amount of compensation for moral damage, the court takes into account the degree of guilt of the offender and the degree of physical and moral suffering associated with the individual characteristics of the citizen who suffered harm, reminds the Supreme Court.

He points out that the amount of compensation is determined depending on the nature of the physical and moral suffering caused to the victim, but taking into account the requirements of reasonableness and fairness.

“When considering claims for compensation for moral damage caused to a citizen, it is necessary to take into account that the amount of compensation ... cannot be made dependent on the size of the satisfied claim for compensation for material damage, losses and other material claims,” notes the Supreme Court.

Since the law, although it provides compensation for moral damage as a method of protection, establishes only general principles for determining the amount of such compensation, it is the court that needs to collectively assess the specific illegal actions of the harm-doer, correlate them with the severity of the physical and moral suffering caused to the victim and individual characteristics his personality, take into account the factual circumstances of the case that deserve attention, as well as the requirements of reasonableness and fairness, proportionality of compensation to the consequences of violation of rights as fundamental principles that require the court to establish a balance of interests of the parties, the Supreme Court points out.

“At the same time, the corresponding reasons for the amount of compensation for moral damage must be given in the court decision,” the highest authority emphasizes.

However, in this case, significantly reducing the amount of damages recovered, the court of first instance limited itself to only referring to the general principles for determining the amount of compensation for moral damage.

“Thus, while seeking compensation for moral damage in favor of the plaintiff, the court of first instance did not give reasons and did not justify why it came to the conclusion that the amount of 150 thousand rubles is sufficient compensation for the moral suffering caused to her by the defendant,” the ruling says.

Also, the district court did not indicate what specific circumstances of the case influenced the amount of the amount recovered and served as the basis for a significant reduction in the amount of compensation compared to that claimed by the plaintiff.

In addition, the court did not provide reasons regarding the degree of guilt of the employer, which was indicated by the court among the circumstances taken into account when determining the amount of compensation. But a police officer who was intoxicated at work was not only not suspended from service, but moreover, he was given a service weapon, from which he shot at the applicant’s son.

Thus, the conclusion of the court of first instance on the amount of compensation for moral damage is not motivated by anything; the decision does not provide arguments to justify the amount of damages sought with reference to any evidence, which does not meet the requirements of Articles 195 and 198 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on legality and validity court decisions, the Supreme Court believes.

In connection with this, the Supreme Court decided to cancel the Moscow City Court’s ruling and send the case for a new trial to the appellate court.

Alice Fox

Grounds for claiming compensation

The Civil Code establishes the grounds that make compensation for moral damage possible:

Presence of physical or mental suffering caused.
The presence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the unlawful actions of the accused and the suffering of the victim.
The presence of guilt of the person who caused the harm.

In exceptional cases, the obligation to compensate for moral damage arises regardless of the guilt of the causer. Such reasons are contained in Art. 1100 Civil Code of the Russian Federation:

if the person’s health was harmed by a source of increased danger;
if the harm was caused due to illegal criminal prosecution or illegal application of a preventive measure;
if the damage was caused by the disclosure of false information;
for other reasons contained in the legislation.

Here are some reasons that allow the court to evaluate the damage as significant enough to recover damages:

when encroaching on personal benefits of a non-material nature;
when committing mercenary crimes against a person (for example, theft and robbery);
upon disclosure of the secret of the will;
in case of violation of the copyright of an individual;
in case of unlawful penalties from an individual;
if the travel agent fails to comply with the terms of the contract;
when spreading false advertising;
when revealing facts of illegal deprivation of liberty;
when harm is caused to a citizen by a minor or a person who suffers from mental illness;
in case of illegal deprivation of a citizen of a place of employment;
in case of unjustified disciplinary sanctions;
when identifying facts of poor-quality service provision;
when selling low-quality products.

It is worth noting that compensation for moral damage is awarded by the court only if such a requirement is contained in the statement of claim. Such a statement must include the following points:

Full name and residential address of the plaintiff;
Full name and residential address of the defendant and his name, details, actual and legal addresses of the company;
what exactly was the violation of rights;
on what circumstances and evidence are the claims based?;
under what circumstances was moral damage caused to a person?;
the amount of compensation expected to be recovered.

The application is accompanied by a copy of the statement of claim for the second party (defendant) and copies of documents that the person points to when formulating his demands. Also, before filing an application, you must pay the state fee for its consideration in court, and a receipt for payment must be attached to the application.

According to the general rules, a claim is filed in a district court. But if, simultaneously with the demand for compensation for moral damage, a property claim is presented in the amount of up to 50 thousand rubles. (for example, in case of violation of consumer rights), then such a case is considered to be within the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court.

According to general practice, cases of recovery of moral damages are heard in court at the place of residence or location of the defendant . If the claim is related to injury to health, the death of the breadwinner, or a violation of labor rights, then it is allowed to file the application at the plaintiff’s home address.

The Supreme Court called on not to “push” issues of compensation for crimes into separate proceedings

Photo: supcourt.ru The Plenum of the Russian Armed Forces considered the draft resolution “On the practice of courts considering a civil claim in a criminal case.” In particular, issues related to compensation for moral damage are explained. In addition, the document states that courts of general jurisdiction must take “exhaustive measures to resolve the existing civil claim on the merits,” and when rendering a guilty verdict, not allow this issue to be unreasonably referred for consideration in civil proceedings.

Harmmaker

The Supreme Court recalled in the document that according to the Civil Code, responsibility for damage caused by a crime lies with the person who committed it (that is, the accused). He must also answer for damage to property that occurred during the commission of a crime (for example, breaking a lock or damaging a car). “At the same time, in cases where the law imposes the obligation to compensate for harm on a person who is not the cause of harm, such a person, including a legal entity, is involved as a civil defendant,” the draft resolution says.

This practice occurs when considering cases of harm caused by an employee of an organization (for example, Article 143 or 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) or in cases of abuse of power (Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

If harm is caused to a minor who has no income or property, then his parents (adoptive parents) or trustees become civil defendants along with him.

The Supreme Court reminds courts of general jurisdiction that both individuals and legal entities have the right to file a civil claim for compensation for property damage from a crime. In addition, an individual can file claims for compensation for moral damage caused by a crime. A state or municipal enterprise that has suffered from a crime may also be recognized as a civil plaintiff; if it has not gone to court on its own, the prosecutor can do this for it. A representative of the supervisory agency or a legal representative may file a civil claim to protect the interests of a minor or a person declared incompetent.

Moral injury

The Supreme Court also gave some clarifications on cases of compensation for harm to the victim’s health. If such a person is an insured person, then the money spent by the medical organization to provide assistance to him is reimbursed by the insurer. In this case, a recourse claim for reimbursement of expenses by a medical insurance organization against the causer of harm is filed in civil proceedings and is not subject to consideration in a criminal case.

If the victim died during the commission of a crime, his relatives may demand compensation for funeral expenses. At the same time, the funeral benefits received by them do not affect the amount of damage subject to compensation.

Relatives of the deceased, recognized as victims in the case, can also file a claim for compensation for moral damage. According to the law, a claim can be brought in cases where “harm is caused to personal non-property rights or intangible benefits belonging to the victim (for example, as a result of robbery, theft with illegal entry into a home, fraud associated with the disclosure of information about private life).” In this case, the civil plaintiff is obliged to justify to the court his demands for the amount of compensation for moral damage.

The Supreme Court does not explain in detail how courts of general jurisdiction should calculate the amount of compensation for moral damage. Plenum only Fr.

A claim can be filed at any time

The Supreme Court Plenum recalls that courts should explain to victims the right to file a claim for compensation for harm. In the event of a civil claim, the court issues an appropriate ruling (resolution), which does not require mandatory removal to the deliberation room.

A claim may be filed after the initiation of a criminal case and before the end of the judicial investigation during the trial of a criminal case in a court of first instance. It is possible to abandon the claim before the court retires to the deliberation room to render a verdict, the Plenum notes. Refusal entails termination of production.

If the accused is recognized as a civil defendant, the court must explain to him the relevant rights.

In accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit regarding the nature and extent of harm lies with the public prosecutor.

“Other property damage caused directly by the crime, but beyond the scope of the charge brought against the defendant (for example, funeral expenses in the event of death of the victim), the civil plaintiff has the right to prove by virtue of the powers granted to him by law, by presenting to the court the relevant evidence (payment receipts, cash and sales receipts, etc.),” says the draft resolution of the Plenum.

Courts warn against red tape

When rendering a verdict, the court must justify the satisfaction of the civil claim or its refusal. The descriptive and motivational part of the decision must contain calculations and references to certain laws.

The recognition of a civil claim by the defendant is not an unconditional basis for its satisfaction, the Supreme Court emphasizes. “The presence of property and moral damage caused by the crime, the nature of this damage and the amount of claims to be satisfied, the court establishes on the basis of the totality of all the evidence examined at the court hearing and cited in the verdict,” the document says.

If there are several defendants, then the court itself determines the shared procedure for recovering damages.

The Plenum draws the attention of the courts to the fact that they must take “exhaustive measures to resolve the existing civil claim on the merits.” When rendering a guilty verdict, courts of general jurisdiction must also prevent the unreasonable transfer of this issue for consideration in civil proceedings.

In the event of an acquittal, the court rejects the civil claim.

The appellate court, the Supreme Court points out, can change the verdict in relation to a civil claim, but only upward. If irreparable violations are established, then the sentence is subject to complete cancellation with the transfer of the civil claim to consideration in civil proceedings. And the criminal case is returned to the court of first instance.

The Plenum of the Supreme Court also recommends that the courts of appeal and cassation respond to every case of unjustified refusal in a civil claim. They have every right to make private determinations, the Supreme Court concludes.

Following the discussion, the draft resolution of the Plenum was sent for revision. Its full text can be found here.

Criteria and calculation of the amount of compensation in judicial practice

Russian legislation provides for the recovery of compensation for moral damage exclusively in monetary form.

The legislation does not contain a clear algorithm for determining the amount of compensation for moral damage. The Civil Code contains only general criteria that should guide the court when calculating compensation. This:

Depth of suffering of the victim.
The nature of the defendant’s guilt (if he had direct intent, the amount of compensation increases).
The principle of reasonableness and fairness (so that compensation is adequate to the damage caused).
Other circumstances (for example, the nature of the defamatory information and the scale of its dissemination).

Typically, recovery occurs according to the following scenario: the plaintiff himself determines the amount of damage in the statement of claim, and later the court adjusts it.

For example, in the ruling in case No. 33-179/2017 of 2021, the court reduced compensation for damage from the 100 thousand rubles requested by the plaintiff. up to 5 thousand rubles

Court decision to recover compensation for moral damage caused by crime No. 2-1463/2017

Case No. 2-1463/2017

SOLUTION

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

On August 23, 2021, the Leninsky District Court of Tomsk, consisting of

presiding judge Ananicheva N.B.,

under secretary Ilina N.V.,

with the participation of the assistant prosecutor of the Leninsky district of Tomsk Dumler Yu.G., plaintiff Nikitin E.S., having considered in open court in Tomsk a civil case based on the claim of Nikitin E.S. to Shinderovsky I.I. on the recovery of compensation for moral damage caused by a crime,

INSTALLED:

Nikitin E.S. filed a lawsuit against I.I. Shinderovsky, in which he asks to recover from the defendant in his favor compensation for moral damage in the amount of 150,000.00 rubles.

He motivated his demands by the fact that I.I. Shinderovsky. applied violence (not dangerous to life and health) against him, as a representative of the authorities (plaintiff), who was performing his official duties, for which he was prosecuted under Part 1 of Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) based on the verdict of the Leninsky District Court of Tomsk dated May 29, 2017. As a result of the crime committed, the plaintiff suffered moral suffering due to insults and physical suffering, due to which he experienced mental distress, shame, pain and humiliation. He estimates the moral damage caused at 150,000.00 rubles.

At the court hearing, plaintiff Nikitin E.S. he supported his stated demands in full based on the circumstances and grounds set out in the claim.

Defendant Shinderovsky I.I. did not appear at the court hearing, was notified of the time and place of the consideration of the case in the manner established by Chapter 10 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Judicial notices sent to the addresses of the place of residence of I.I. Shinderovsky available in the case materials. (; ), returned to the court with a mark indicating the expiration of the storage period.

Within the meaning of Art. 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a person himself determines the scope of his rights and obligations in civil proceedings. A person, having determined his rights, exercises them at his own discretion. Disposal of one's rights is one of the fundamental principles of legal proceedings.

According to Art. 165.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), a person bears the risk of the consequences of non-receipt of legally significant messages received at his address, and has no right, in relations with persons who in good faith sent such statements, notices, notices, demands or other legally significant messages to him, with which the law or transaction binds civil consequences for another person, refer to their non-receipt. A message is considered delivered if it has arrived to the person to whom it was sent (the addressee), but due to circumstances depending on him, it has not been delivered to him or the addressee has not familiarized himself with it.

In other words, due to the principle of discretion, a party to a case independently disposes of its rights, according to its own will and in its own interests, including whether or not to receive postal correspondence. Moreover, in the latter case, the party bears all the adverse consequences of such inaction. The plaintiffs did not present to the court any evidence of valid reasons that prevented the receipt of the said postal item.

The court took exhaustive measures to notify the defendant, however, taking into account the provisions of Part 3 of Art. 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court considers it possible to recognize his failure to appear at the court hearing as disrespectful and consider the case in his absence.

Having heard the plaintiff, assistant prosecutor of the Leninsky district of Tomsk, who considered the claim subject to partial satisfaction, and having examined the written materials of the case, the court comes to the following.

According to Article 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are recognized and guaranteed in the Russian Federation in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution.

The right to life and health care is one of the generally recognized, fundamental, inalienable human rights and freedoms subject to state protection (Articles 20, 41 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

By virtue of Art. 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, a court verdict in a criminal case that has entered into legal force is obligatory for the court considering the case on the civil consequences of the actions of the person in respect of whom the court verdict was passed, on the issues of whether these actions took place and whether they were committed by this person.

The verdict of the Leninsky District Court of Tomsk dated May 29, 2017, Shinderovsky I.I., entered into legal force. found guilty of committing a crime under Part 1 of Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, he was sentenced to two years of suspended imprisonment.

As follows from the court verdict, the crime was committed under the following circumstances: on November 30, 2016, in the period from 13 to 18 hours, I.I. Shinderovsky, being on the area near the railway crossing 5 km 6 picket section (station) Tomsk-2 - Tomsk -Gruzovoy, in close proximity to house No. 52 on the street. Ring Road in Tomsk, knowingly knowing and realizing that Nikitin E.S., acting deliberately, out of sudden personal hostility towards the latter, with the aim of causing Nikitin E.S. physical pain and bodily harm were inflicted on Nikitin by E.S. one knee blow to the groin area, causing Nikitin E.S. physical pain that does not result in harm to the victim’s health.

Thus, as a result of the illegal actions of Shinderovsky I.I. Nikitin E.S. physical pain was caused but did not result in harm to health.

Thus, the fault of I.I. Shinderovsky in committing a crime under Part 1 of Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, established by the verdict of the Leninsky District Court of Tomsk dated May 29, 2017, which is mandatory for the court considering a case for compensation for moral damage caused by a crime.

Harm caused to the person or property of a citizen is subject to compensation in full by the person who caused the harm (a. 1, Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, the grounds and amount of compensation to a citizen for moral damage are determined by the rules provided for by Chapter 59 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Article 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Article 1099 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

In accordance with Art. 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if a citizen has suffered moral harm (physical or moral suffering) by actions that violate his personal non-property rights, or encroach on other intangible benefits belonging to the citizen, as well as in other cases provided for by law, the court may impose on the violator the obligation of monetary compensation for the specified harm.

According to the explanations contained in paragraph 2 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 20, 1994 No. 10 “Some issues of application of legislation on compensation for moral harm,” moral harm is understood as moral or physical suffering caused by actions (inaction) encroaching on what belongs to a citizen from birth or by virtue of the law, intangible benefits (life, health, personal dignity, business reputation, privacy, personal and family secrets, etc.), or violating his personal non-property rights (the right to use his name, the right of authorship and other non-property rights in accordance with laws on the protection of rights to the results of intellectual activity) or violating the property rights of a citizen.

Moral harm, in particular, may consist of moral feelings in connection with the loss of relatives, the inability to continue an active social life, loss of a job, disclosure of family or medical secrets, dissemination of untrue information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, temporary restrictions or deprivation of any rights, physical pain associated with injury, other damage to health or in connection with a disease suffered as a result of moral suffering, etc.

From the explanations in paragraph 11 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 26, 2010 No. 1 “On the application by courts of civil legislation governing relations under obligations resulting from harm to the life or health of a citizen” it follows that according to the general rule established by paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art. . 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, responsibility for causing harm is assigned to the person who caused the harm, unless he proves the absence of his guilt.

Paragraph 32 of the said resolution explained to the courts that causing harm to the life or health of a citizen detracts from his personal non-material benefits, entails physical or moral suffering, the victim, along with compensation for property damage caused to him, has the right to compensation for moral damage, subject to the guilt of the harm-doer. Regardless of the guilt of the causer of harm, compensation for moral damage is provided if harm to the life or health of a citizen is caused by a source of increased danger (Article 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

According to paragraph 2 of Art. 1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the amount of compensation for moral damage is determined by the court depending on the nature of the physical and moral suffering caused to the victim, as well as the degree of guilt of the harm-doer in cases where guilt is the basis for compensation for harm. When determining the amount of compensation for harm, the requirements of reasonableness and fairness must be taken into account.

The nature of physical and moral suffering is assessed by the court, taking into account the factual circumstances in which moral harm was caused and the individual characteristics of the victim.

Paragraph 8 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 20, 1994 No. 10 “Some issues of application of legislation on compensation for moral damage” clarifies that the amount of compensation depends on the nature and extent of moral or physical suffering caused to the plaintiff, the degree of guilt of the defendant in each specific case, other circumstances worthy of attention, and cannot be made dependent on the size of the satisfied claim for compensation for material harm, losses and other material claims. When determining the amount of compensation for harm, the requirements of reasonableness and fairness must be taken into account. The degree of moral or physical suffering is assessed by the court, taking into account the actual circumstances of the infliction of moral harm, the individual characteristics of the victim and other specific circumstances indicating the severity of the suffering he suffered.

Since moral damage by its nature does not imply the possibility of its exact expression in money and full compensation, the monetary compensation provided for by law should only meet the criteria of fair compensation for the victim for the suffering suffered.

Considering the above, based on the factual circumstances of the case, the nature of the physical and moral suffering of the plaintiff, who experienced physical pain at the time of his blow to the groin area, moral suffering in connection with the actions that humiliated him as a person and a representative of the government on the part of the defendant, the value of the right subject to defense, taking into account the requirements of reasonableness and fairness, the personality of the plaintiff, taking into account his age and state of health, the court comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to partially satisfy the demands of Nikitin E.S. and recovery from Shinderovsky I.I. in favor of Nikitin E.S. moral bucket compensation in the amount of RUB 35,000.00.

When distributing the burden of legal costs, the court is guided by the following.

In accordance with Art. 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the party in whose favor the court decision was made, the court awards the other party to reimburse all legal expenses incurred in the case, except for the cases provided for in part two of Article 96 of this Code. If the claim is partially satisfied, the legal costs specified in this article are awarded to the plaintiff in proportion to the amount of the claims satisfied by the court, and to the defendant in proportion to the part of the claims that were denied to the plaintiff.

Based on Art. 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, legal costs consist of state fees and costs associated with the consideration of the case.

According to Part 1 of Art. 333.19 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) in cases considered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in accordance with the civil procedural legislation of the Russian Federation and the legislation on administrative proceedings, courts of general jurisdiction, magistrates, the state fee when filing a claim of a property nature, not subject to assessment, as well as a claim of a non-property nature, is paid for individuals in the amount of 300 rubles.

At the same time, in accordance with paragraphs. 4 paragraphs 2 art. 333.36 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, plaintiffs in claims for compensation for property and (or) moral damage caused by a crime are exempt from paying state fees in cases considered under the civil procedural legislation of the Russian Federation by courts of general jurisdiction

In accordance with Art. 103 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, clause 8, part 1, art. 333.20 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the state fee, from which the plaintiff was exempted, is recovered from the defendant, who is not exempt from paying court costs, in proportion to the satisfied part of the claims. In this case, the collected amounts are credited to the budget revenue from which they were reimbursed, and the state duty is credited to the corresponding budget in accordance with the deduction standards established by the budget legislation of the Russian Federation.

As provided for in Article 61.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Budget Code of the Russian Federation), the state fee for cases considered by courts of general jurisdiction is subject to credit to the local budget.

According to the legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, set out by it in paragraph 21 of its resolution dated January 21, 2016 No. 1 “On some issues of application of legislation on compensation of costs associated with the consideration of a case” Provisions of procedural legislation on proportional compensation (distribution) of legal costs (Article 98 , 102, 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Article 111 of the Code of Arbitration Procedures of the Russian Federation, Article 110 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) are not subject to application when resolving a claim of a non-property nature, including a claim with a monetary value aimed at protecting personal non-property rights (for example, compensation for moral damage).

In view of the above, taking into account that the plaintiff Nikitin E.S. exempted from paying state duty by force of law, and defendant Shinderovsky I.I. is not exempt from paying it, the court considers that the defendant must be charged a state fee for consideration of the case in the amount of 300.00 rubles to the local budget.

Based on the above, guided by Articles 194-198 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court

DECIDED

Claims of Nikitin E.S. to Shinderovsky I.I. partially satisfy the claim for compensation for moral damage.

Collect from Shinderovsky I.I. in favor of Nikitin E.S. RUB 35,000.00 for compensation for moral damage.

The rest of the claims are rejected.

Collect from Shinderovsky I.I. to the budget of the municipal formation "City of Tomsk" 300.00 rubles - a state fee, from which the plaintiff was exempted when filing a claim.

The decision can be appealed to the Tomsk Regional Court through the Leninsky District Court of Tomsk within a month from the date the court decision was made in final form.

Chairman N.B. Ananicheva

Author of the article

Dmitry Leonov

Work experience 15 years, specialization - housing, family, inheritance, land, criminal cases.

Author's rating

721

Articles written

712
about the author