Problems of compensation for moral damage in case of violation of certain property rights in the Russian Federation
Consumer rights violations. Currently, the law, which directly provides for the possibility of compensation for moral damage in the event of violation of property rights of a citizen, is the Law of the Russian Federation "On Protection of Consumer Rights" Federal Law of February 7, 1992 N 2300-I On Protection of Consumer Rights (as amended on October 25, 2007) // "Vedomosti SND and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
According to Article 13 of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights, moral damage caused to the consumer as a result of violation by the manufacturer (performer, seller) of his rights under the legislation on protection of consumer rights, is subject to compensation by the inflicting damage in the presence of his guilt.
Russian courts already have a rich practice of applying this law. Although the majority of decisions on moral damage compensation clearly show a lack of uniformity in the approach of courts to the issue of determining the amount of compensation, in consumer protection cases there has been a tendency for some time to equate the amount of compensation for moral damage with the cost of low-quality goods (works, services).
This trend ceased after the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its resolution No. 7 dated September 29, 1994. The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation "On the practice of consideration by the courts of consumer protection cases" pointed out that since moral damage is compensated in monetary or other material form and in the amount determined by the court, regardless of the property damage to be compensated, the amount of the claim satisfied by the court cannot be made dependent on the value of the goods (work, services) or the amount of the penalty to be levied, but must be based on the nature and amount of moral and physical suffering inflicted on the consumer in each particular case.
The positive part of this ruling looks less clear, because it operates with unsuccessful notions: the "nature and scope of moral suffering" and "nature and scope of physical suffering", since moral and physical suffering, being components of moral harm, does not imply the possibility of further differentiation into categories. As the analysis of the decisions shows, the courts in most cases do not establish what types of suffering the plaintiff has suffered and in what specific terms they have expressed themselves, nor do they justify the amount of compensation for moral harm that they determine.
Sometimes, as noted by the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, courts of first instance refuse to collect compensation for moral damage, citing circumstances that can only serve as a basis for reducing the amount of compensation. Indeed, the amount of compensation for moral damage can be as small as possible, up to symbolic amounts. But the small amount of compensation and denial of compensation are fundamentally different things, because compensation for moral harm can be refused only in the absence of the grounds for liability for moral harm or in the event that gross negligence or intent of the victim contributed to the emergence of harm.
