WAYS OF DETERMINATION OF THE SENSITIVITY OF MORAL (NON-PROPERTY) DAMAGE, CAUSED BY PHYSICAL PERSONALITY

In this article, the authors consider the notion of moral (non-property) damage, as well as ways to determine the amount of compensation for such damage to an individual. Investigating the definition of moral (non-property) damage caused to an individual, the authors suggest to identify the concept of «non-personal injury to an individual» with the notion of «moral harm to an individual». The article states that the compensation of moral (non-property) damage with the help of a universal formula is impossible. There are also two practical ways to determine the amount of non-pecuniary damage: 1) through the court, by means of a court decision, which determines the amount of non-pecuniary damage; 2) by concluding an agreement on voluntary compensation for damage. The authors emphasize that litigation cases that deal with the issue of compensation for moral (non-property) damage are diverse, so the application of the same criteria for determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in all cases will be erroneous. It is noted that one of the key practical problems encountered in the context of the application of the norms of the current legislation is the search for a single model for establishing fair compensation for property suffered by the victim. In this case, it is proposed to refer to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the national courts of Ukraine, which basically decide on the issue of compensation for non-pecuniary damage at its discretion, based on the principles of fairness, reasonableness and prudence. The article draws attention to the fact that the law provides for the appointment of forensic examinations to determine the amount of moral harm, in particular, psychological. The authors note that the examination will not be able to accurately determine the amount of monetary compensation paid to a person of non-pecuniary damage, since each investigated, during the examination, is unique. Therefore, they note that the appointment of any «expertise» to determine the amount of non-pecuniary damage is optional. Also, in the article, the authors formulated that, in the event of agreement between the parties on all issues of non-pecuniary damage, the latter should conclude an agreement on voluntary compensation for moral (non-pecuniary) harm.