The Non-Pecuniary Injury Compensation Methodology was created as a tool to support the development of decisions in the area of compensation for non-pecuniary injury. Why and by whom was the methodology developed, what is its binding nature and when can it be applied? This is the focus of the current text.
The Methodology for the Compensation of Non-Pecuniary Injury was developed by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic in response to long-standing legal uncertainty and divergent case law in the area of valuation of non-pecuniary injury. It was developed in cooperation with the Society of Medical Law, representatives of insurers and other legal and medical professions. The main objective was to develop a coherent and systematic approach that would enable courts and other legal entities to assess and compensate for non-pecuniary damage in a consistent and fair manner.
Are you the victim of a crime?
We will provide you with a fast and easy access to justice. We know that the situation of victims and victims of crime in criminal proceedings is very challenging. We will help you map out your situation and explain your rights and options in a clear manner. We will write a criminal complaint, guide you through the criminal process and support you in court.
Tip: Have you been a victim of a crime and suffered damages? Are you thinking about claiming it in criminal proceedings? What is an adhesion procedure and how exactly does it work? We will take a closer look at this in our article.
Prior to the development of this methodology, the courts could rely on the Decree on Compensation for Pain and Hardship until January 2014. A turning point was the adoption of the new Civil Code in 2014. The new Civil Code reformed many aspects of private law, including the rules on damages and pain and suffering. In this context, the aforementioned decree was repealed. While the new legislation included a framework for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, practice has shown that there is still a need for further interpretation and methodological guidance from the courts. There were extremely divergent court decisions in similar cases, resulting in legal uncertainty.
The work of the Supreme Court judges, lawyers and academics has resulted in a document that offers concrete guidance on the valuation of non-pecuniary damage, including formulas and examples of how to proceed in different situations.
The methodology was thus developed in response to the practical needs of the Czech judiciary and is a fundamental step towards ensuring transparency, predictability and fairness in the field of compensation.
Generally, in practice, we encounter various reasons why damages are payable. These can be summarised under one of the sub-categories listed:
The Methodology was drawn up in connection with the latter provision of the Civil Code.
The Methodology on compensation for non-pecuniary damage cannot, by its very nature, have the character of a legal regulation. This fact affects its binding effect on the courts. However, the Supreme Court recommends that courts use it when deciding disputes on compensation for pain and suffering and social disadvantage under Section 2958 of the Civil Code and that they justify their decisions in accordance with the rules set out therein.
Thus, despite its factual non-binding nature, the Methodology has a rather significant influence on judicial practice. It constitutes a recognised guideline which the courts often use as a reference point for determining the amount of compensation. It thus helps to ensure greater uniformity and predictability in Czech law.
Tip: Have you been a victim of a crime and suffered damages? What are the defence options under Czech law and when can you claimdamages in criminal proceedings? We have looked at this in more detail in our separate article.
Model examples from practice show how the methodology is used to provide an award for non-pecuniary damage.
The Non-Pecuniary Injury Compensation Methodology sets out clear principles and criteria for the award of non-pecuniary damage, which includes pain, suffering and reduced standard of living. As we have already mentioned, it aims to provide courts and legal professionals with a framework that will help guarantee fair and consistent results in different cases. The following points summarise the basic principles set out in the methodology:
By applying these principles, the methodology seeks to ensure that the award of non-pecuniary damage is as objective, fair and predictable as possible.
The Methodology has provoked various reactions among legal professionals and in the public debate. While on the one hand it is recognised for its contribution to objectifying and standardising the calculation of compensation, there has also been criticism pointing to possible shortcomings and limitations.
On the one hand, it is appreciated that it provides uniform and understandable guidelines that help to increase the consistency of judicial decisions. It also increases the transparency of the decision-making process by providing clear formulas and criteria for assessing harm, which reduces the scope for subjective assessment.
However, some critics argue that the methodology can lead to too much rigidity, where courts may lose the ability to respond flexibly to the unique aspects of each case. Nor may the emphasis on quantification and mathematical models adequately reflect the depth and complexity of human suffering. There are views that pain and suffering are too personal and individual to be fairly expressed in numerical terms alone.
There has also been confusion for some time about the answer to the question of whether an expert’s report on non-pecuniary damage under the Methodology must be drawn up by an expert who is an expert both in the field of non-pecuniary damage to health (which has developed precisely in the context of the Methodology) and in the field in which the personal injury under assessment most closely falls. The prevailing view is that this is not necessary.
In conclusion, the methodology of the Supreme Court is an important tool for unifying and improving the decision-making on non-pecuniary damage. Although it is not binding, its importance lies in providing a framework to help judges assess pain, suffering and loss of amenity more fairly and transparently. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that it will not limit the individual assessment of each case. Overall, this is a positive step towards a more consistent and predictable justice system.
If you are a victim in criminal proceedings, then you have special procedural rights that are good to know. In this situation, it pays to be represented by an attorney.
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.
