In a recent ruling, the Constitutional Court emphasized that compensation for non-pecuniary damage for interference with personality rights should not only have a compensatory function, but also a preventive and punitive role. This means that when someone significantly damages your reputation or privacy, the compensation should not be merely symbolic or merely cover the damage caused. It should also act as a warning to others to avoid similar behaviour.
The entire dispute concerned an interference with the personality rights of the plaintiff, who sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage. At the heart of the case was the question of how much compensation could be awarded and whether it should only be compensatory or also serve as a sanction against the person who caused the injury.
The applicant sought financial compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the defendant’s conduct. As is apparent from the judgment, this was a situation in which there had been a significant interference with personal rights. Although the lower courts awarded compensation, their approach was purely compensatory – that is, they set an amount which was intended to compensate for the harm suffered, not to deter similar conduct in the future.
It was the question of the punitive and preventive function of compensation that then became crucial in the review by the Constitutional Court.
Our team of experienced attorneys will help you solve any legal issue. Within 24 hours we’ll evaluate your situation and suggest a step-by-step solution, including all costs. The price for this proposal is only CZK 690, and this is refunded to you when you order service from us.
Home births are an increasingly common choice for some women, although they remain a controversial topic from both a medical and legal perspective. Who is criminally liable if a baby dies during a home birth? It was the criminal liability of the mother and the mother-in-law that was addressed in a recent case by the Constitutional Court. For more information, see our article on this topic.
The dispute was first resolved by the court of first instance, which awarded the plaintiff compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In fixing the amount of compensation, the court based itself on its previous practice, which focused primarily on compensation for the harm suffered. The Court therefore assessed the intensity of the interference with the applicant’s personal rights, its effects on his private and professional life and the circumstances of the case.
However, the applicant considered that the amount awarded was insufficient and therefore appealed. The Court of Appeal reviewed his claim but upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance in substance. Like the lower court, it followed the interpretation that the compensation for non-pecuniary damage was intended only to compensate for the damage caused and not to punish the defendant or deter him from engaging in similar conduct.
It was this approach, which rejected the preventive-punitive concept of compensation, that eventually came under review by the Constitutional Court.
In its ruling, the Constitutional Court concluded that compensation for non-pecuniary damage should not only serve to compensate the injured party, but also to prevent and sanction the wrongdoer. In other words, the amount awarded should take into account not only the degree of damage suffered but also the gravity of the interference and the defendant’s motivation.
The Court stressed that if the protection of personality rights is to be truly effective, compensation cannot be set so as to make the risk of litigation worthwhile for the harmed party. The amount should take into account the motives of the victim – whether he acted intentionally, negligently or out of a desire for profit, for example. Another important factor is the pecuniary benefit that the victim may have gained from his or her conduct. For example, if the interference with personal rights led to financial gain or other advantage, this may be grounds for higher compensation.
Courts should also take into account the social status of the wrongdoer – different standards may apply to individuals and different ones to large companies or media houses, which can have a significant impact on public opinion.
With this decision, the Constitutional Court has disrupted previous practice, which had focused exclusively on the compensatory function of compensation, and opened the way for higher compensation in cases where it is justified.
In its ruling, the Constitutional Court departed from the existing case law of the Supreme Court, which has long held that compensation for non-pecuniary damage is exclusively compensatory. According to the Supreme Court, the amount of compensation should have been set to correspond to the intensity of the interference with personality rights, regardless of whether it had a punitive or preventive effect.
However,the Constitutional Court rejected this approach and emphasised that effective protection of personality rights also requires the possibility of awarding higher amounts as a form of prevention. This shift means that the courts should take more account of the motivation of the wrongdoer, his potential benefit and the degree of culpability.
The Constitutional Court’s decision thus opens the way for a change in the current judicial practice, and it can be expected that in some cases the courts will award higher amounts, especially if it is necessary to deter the repetition of similar conduct.
The Constitutional Court’s ruling represents a fundamental change in the approach to compensation for non-pecuniary damage, which may have a significant impact on future litigation. Victims will have a better chance of obtaining higher compensation, especially if they can prove that the harmer acted intentionally, benefited from the interference with their rights or was well aware of his or her actions.
This new approach could lead to greater protection of personal rights and also to people and companies thinking more about whether their actions interfere with the rights of others. This is likely to move jurisprudence towards a more stringent approach to interference with personality.
The Constitutional Court has ruled that when someone significantly damages your reputation or privacy, damages should not be nominal or just cover the harm caused. It should also act as a warning. The courts should therefore take into account not only how much the victim has been affected, but also whether the harmer acted intentionally, benefited from it or was indifferent to the consequences. All of this can affect the amount of compensation. With this decision, the Constitutional Court has changed the previous practice of the Supreme Court, which held that compensation for non-pecuniary damage should serve only to compensate for the damage, not to deter or “punish” the guilty party.
Our team of experienced attorneys will help you solve any legal issue. Within 24 hours we’ll evaluate your situation and suggest a step-by-step solution, including all costs. The price for this proposal is only CZK 690, and this is refunded to you when you order service from us.
Ondřej is the attorney who came up with the idea of providing legal services online. He's been earning his living through legal services for more than 10 years. He especially likes to help clients who may have given up hope in solving their legal issues at work, for example with real estate transfers or copyright licenses.
In person and online. Just choose the appropriate service or opt for an independent consultation when you are unsure.
