A million or one hryvnia: how Courts assess moral damages

Analysis of the current practice of the Supreme Court regarding the determination of the amount of moral damages was presented by Serhii Zaianchukovskyi, attorney, counsel at LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS, in an article for LIGA ZAKON.

Assessing the prospects of recovering moral damages has always been difficult. For each individual, the suffering they personally endured is the most painful, making its adequate expression in monetary terms nearly impossible. As a result, lawsuits often emerge seeking millions of hryvnias in moral damages. In turn, the courts remind us every year that the amount of compensation for moral damages should not exceed what is reasonably sufficient to meet a person’s needs and should not result in unjust enrichment. This, in turn, sometimes causes plaintiffs to be cautious and request moral damage compensation in the amount of one hryvnia to reduce the risk of having their claim denied.

In this material, we will examine how courts resolve these issues as of early 2025.

Criminal proceedings: when guilt is established

In such cases, the chances of recovering moral damages are highest, since the guilt of the person is already proven, as well as the victim’s suffering and causal link.

For example, in a case on compensation for moral damages to a victim as a result of a traffic accident, the Supreme Court confirmed that “the court’s decision to partially satisfy the civil claim… corresponds to the nature and extent of the victim’s moral suffering,” justifying the reduction of the compensation amount to UAH 100,000 in view of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

The Supreme Court, in a ruling of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court dated January 14, 2025, in case No. 592/7961/18, stated:

“The appellate court, partially satisfying the victim’s claim, took into account that as a result of the accident he sustained serious bodily injuries, is undergoing treatment, and was assigned disability group II. This led to emotional distress and a change in his usual way of life. The court’s decision to partially satisfy the civil claim and to award moral damages… aligns with the principle of reasonableness, balance, and fairness, and corresponds to the nature and extent of the victim’s moral suffering”.

In contrast, the Supreme Court, by the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, in a ruling dated January 20, 2025, in case No. 357/12623/21, deemed fair the compensation of moral damages to the victim in the amount of UAH 1,000,000. In this case, the convicted person was sentenced by the court under paragraph 7 of part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to life imprisonment.

Civil cases: everything depends on proof

The Supreme Court, in a ruling by the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated March 19, 2025, in case No. 686/4867/24, found justified the compensation of moral damages caused by the employer’s unlawful orders to reprimand an employee.

The plaintiff requested UAH 5,000. The appellate court established that “the disputed orders of the defendant are partially unlawful and partially lawful, since the plaintiff committed some violations of labor duties, therefore the claim for compensation of moral damages is subject to partial satisfaction, and the amount of moral damages awarded by the district court should be reduced from UAH 5,000 to UAH 1,000”. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions.

The Supreme Court, in a ruling by the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated January 29, 2025, in case No. 757/36821/23-ts, examined the plaintiff’s claim for compensation of moral damages in the amount of UAH 1,000,000, allegedly caused by the actions of the National Bank of Ukraine.

These claims were denied: “Since the courts of previous instances established and the case materials confirmed the absence of wrongful actions by the bank in executing the payment demand, and the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of moral damage, the courts reasonably concluded that there were no grounds to satisfy the claim for compensation of moral damages”.

The ruling contains numerous references to other judicial practices on the compensation of moral damages in recent years and will be useful for lawyers researching these issues.

An atypical situation had to be considered by the Supreme Court in the Grand Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court on January 20, 2025, in case No. 296/12456/23.

The plaintiff requested compensation for moral damages, arguing that the procedural opponent in another case “illegally and prematurely filed an appeal… with twenty violations of legal norms, in particular, without the full text of the court decision being appealed present at the executive committee”.

The court of first instance, supported by the appellate court, denied the plaintiff the opening of proceedings.

The Grand Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court noted that “the law does not provide for such a means of protection as filing a claim for compensation of moral damages caused by the filing of an appeal in another case. The plaintiff’s disagreement with the appeal should be expressed in a procedural manner — that is, according to the procedural law during the court’s review of the specific case in which the appeal was filed. The absence of a dispute excludes the possibility of going to court, since there is no right that is subject to judicial protection”.

Moral damages due to the actions of the aggressor state

Since the beginning of hostilities in 2014, a new category of claims has emerged — compensation for moral damages caused by the actions of the aggressor state. Since 2022, this judicial practice has gained additional relevance and remains generally unchanged as of today.

In the analyzed cases, the Supreme Court maintained a consistent position: responsibility for moral damages caused by hostilities lies with Russia, while claims to recover compensation from Ukraine were denied.

For example, the Supreme Court, in a ruling by the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated January 22, 2025, in case No. 210/6142/23, concluded that responsibility for the death of a father on the premises of an enterprise during working hours lies not with the enterprise owner, but with the occupying state, whose actions essentially led to the person’s death: “since the fatal accident that occurred on June 13, 2023, with PERSON_3 during the performance of his work duties, occurred precisely as a result of the consequences of military (combat) actions by the occupying state, the compensation for moral damages caused by the military aggression of the occupying state against Ukraine cannot, under the circumstances of this case, be imposed on LLC YUKK Yuryk Kom”.

The ruling of the Supreme Court dated March 5, 2025, in case No. 757/13711/22-ts, also deserves attention. In this case, the plaintiff sought compensation for a destroyed home both from Ukraine (due to the alleged failure of Ukraine to fulfill its positive obligations to ensure property rights) and from the Russian Federation.

In this case, the courts agreed with the plaintiff’s arguments regarding compensation from the aggressor state but denied compensation from Ukraine due to lack of evidence.

Practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court

The position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, expressed in cases in which verdicts were delivered at the beginning of 2025, confirms again: the mere recognition of an authority’s decision or action as unlawful does not automatically constitute grounds for moral damages. The plaintiff must prove the fact of harm, the nature of the moral suffering, and the causal link between the actions (inaction) of the authority and the harm caused.

In its ruling dated January 16, 2025, in case No. 9901/54/19, the Grand Chamber stated:

“The Grand Chamber notes that merely recognizing the Disputed Decision as unlawful and its annulment does not unconditionally confirm the presence of circumstances that, under Article 23 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, constitute grounds for compensation for moral damage, and does not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to prove the circumstances and facts that substantiate the claim in this part”.

An extremely interesting ruling is the Grand Chamber’s decision dated January 22, 2025, in case No. 335/6977/22, which departed from previous legal conclusions and formed a new position on the application of legal norms.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Patrol Police for compensation of moral damages caused by unlawful administrative prosecution. A report on the administrative offense was filed against the plaintiff, and the case was referred to court, which closed it due to the absence of an event or elements of the administrative offense. Referring to the already established practice of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff argued that this confirmed the unlawfulness of the police officer’s actions in drawing up the report, and thus filed a separate lawsuit for compensation. The plaintiff assessed the amount of moral damage at UAH 42,880, taking into account the time spent proving his innocence in the traffic accident.

The courts of first and second instance agreed with the plaintiff’s claims for compensation, although they did not reach a common position on the amount.

The Grand Chamber referred to its ruling dated March 13, 2019, in case No. 712/7385/17, in which it had already concluded that actions by an authority in drafting a report, without a decision on imposing administrative liability, do not produce legal consequences for the person and do not violate their rights. Also, in its ruling dated June 19, 2019, in case No. 638/3490/18, the Grand Chamber noted that the administrative offense report itself is not a decision of an authority.

When evaluating the possibility of recognizing the actions of patrol police officers as unlawful, the Grand Chamber stated:

“If, during the review of the case on the administrative offense, no inconsistency of the actions (inaction) of the patrol police officers in drawing up the report was established, and these actions led to the closure of the administrative case, the actions of the patrol police officer in drawing up the report on the administrative offense, if the case is later closed due to lack of offense elements, can only be grounds for compensation by the state if the closure occurred due to a clear inconsistency of the report with legal requirements or other unlawful actions by patrol officers during the preparation of administrative offense materials, or if such actions bear signs of arbitrariness”.

“That is, the court’s finding of the absence of an administrative offense in the plaintiff’s actions based on an assessment of all the evidence, including the conclusion of a forensic automotive technical examination, does not prove the obvious unlawfulness of the police officer’s actions in preparing the administrative materials”.

“The lower courts failed to consider that the decision in the administrative offense case did not establish that the report drawn up following the traffic accident did not meet legal requirements, including Article 256 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, or that the actions of the patrol police officer at the time of preparing the report were unlawful”.

Thus, the following conclusion on the application of legal norms was formed:

“If the report on the administrative offense complies with legal requirements and the patrol police officers acted lawfully and within their authority when preparing the report, the fact that the administrative proceedings were closed due to the absence of offense elements does not confirm the unlawfulness of the patrol officers’ actions in drafting such a report. If, during the review of the administrative offense case, no inconsistency in the actions (inaction) of the patrol police officers in preparing the report was established, which led to the case’s closure, then the report can only serve as grounds for state liability if the closure occurred due to a clear legal inconsistency of the report or other unlawful or arbitrary actions by the police”.

Regarding the application of Article 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Compensation for Damage Caused to a Citizen by Illegal Actions of Operational-Investigative Bodies, Pre-Trial Investigation Bodies, Prosecutors and Courts” No. 266/94-VR dated December 1, 1994, the Grand Chamber noted:

“Given the applicable legal norms, the Grand Chamber concluded that a police officer preparing a report on an administrative offense is not a subject conducting operational-investigative activities or pre-trial investigations, and thus the provisions of Article 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and Law No. 266/94-VR do not apply to such legal relations”.

“In conclusion, the Grand Chamber found that if a case under Article 124 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses is closed due to the absence of an offense or event, compensation for damage to a person against whom a report was filed is carried out under the general provisions of Article 1174 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, while the provisions of Article 1176 and Law No. 266/94-VR are not applicable”.

Thus, the following conclusion on the application of the legal norm was formed:

“Given the provisions of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the National Police’ and the Law of Ukraine ‘On Operational-Investigative Activities,’ the patrol police is not an authority conducting operational-investigative activities or pre-trial investigations. Therefore, legal relations concerning the preparation of traffic safety violation reports are not subject to Article 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine or Law No. 266/94-VR”.

Departing from earlier legal conclusions of the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, the Grand Chamber stated that “if the report on the administrative offense complies with legal requirements and the patrol police officers acted in accordance with the law and within their authority while preparing it, then the closure of administrative proceedings due to the absence of offense elements does not confirm the unlawfulness of the patrol officers’ actions in preparing such a report”.