The case № 638/8636/17-c considered by the Supreme Court, 05/13/2020, was closed by a legal conclusion, according to which the inactivity of the prosecutor’s office is not evidence of moral harm, therefore, it cannot be compensated!
Initially, the lawsuit was initiated by a citizen who believes that the inaction of the law enforcement system is punishable . He decided that the recovery of compensation for moral damage from the prosecutor’s office, which did not protect his civil rights, is a completely realizable measure!
He motivated his demand by the fact that he several times over the course of 3 years appealed to the prosecutor’s office with statements about the commission of criminal offenses, but the prosecutor’s office did not enter his message into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations and by its inaction violated the requirements of Art. 214th CPC.
According to the plaintiff, this attitude caused him moral harm, because for a long time he visited the courts of various instances to restore his violated rights.
Also, due to the fault of the prosecutor’s office, his state of health deteriorated significantly and he, as an invalid of group 2, had to undergo a course of treatment.
The court of first instance took the side of the citizen and ordered the state to pay the plaintiff for the inaction from side of prosecutor’s office, but, unfortunately, the Supreme Court had a different opinion on this matter.
“The plaintiff estimated his suffering at 647 000 UAH, and the court of first instance, which satisfied the claim, at 10 000 UAH! The decision was motivated by the fact that the plaintiff proved the existence of moral suffering, but could not justify their “price”! The appeal court fully agreed with this!”
took into account the arguments of the prosecutor’s office that this body did nothing of the kind and the mere fact of the plaintiff’s appeals to law enforcement agencies cannot testify to a violation of his rights!
The prosecutor’s office also “justified itself” by the fact that the plaintiff exercised his right to appeal against decisions of state bodies, and she acted within the framework of the implementation of control functions!
The Supreme Court “took away” from the plaintiff even the awarded UAH 10 000, agreeing that Art. 56 of Constitution grants everyone the right to compensation for harm at the expense of the state if it is caused by the authorities in the exercise of their powers, but not in this case, because …
For the existence of grounds for the obligation to compensate for harm in accordance with the requirements of Art. 1174 CCU necessary: an illegal decision (actions or inaction) of a state authority, the presence of harm, the unlawfulness of the actions of its perpetrator and a causal relationship between action and harm.
That is, the plaintiff had to give all these arguments and prove them properly! He did not do this, therefore, he has no right to claim moral compensation!
Cassation economic court of the Supreme Court “stood up” for the mortgage apartment of the borrower of the bank, delimiting the personal and business rights and obligations of individual entrepreneurs, as well as limiting the rights of claimants to this property. So, with the conclusion in case No. 922/4404/15, promulgated on 06/04/19, the Supreme Court […]
Professional legal aid often ensures successful appeals against the decision of the first instance court. See for yourself how events can develop with one fresh example. The pensioner, a disabled person of the III group, was threatened with a fine in the amount of UAH 10 200.00 and deprivation of a driver’s license for a […]
The Supreme Court of Ukraine did not allow the bank to prohibit its debtors from leaving Ukraine, since the CPCU does not have such a measure to secure claims as a temporary restriction of the right to travel abroad, even if a foreclosure procedure has been started with respect to mortgage property. Brief overview of […]
“On claims for foreclosure on the subject of a mortgage, the court fee is calculated based on the value of the pledged property, and not on the amount of the debt obligation!” – expressed the Supreme Court of Ukraine by the decision on the case No. 307/23/18 dated 02.10.19. The conclusion was made after considering […]
By its decision in case No. 342/180/17 of 03/07/19, the BC-Supreme Court of Ukraine “broke” the established judicial practice on the collection of overdue debt on PrivatBank credit cards! From this date, the terms and conditions for the provision of banking services posted on the pages of the PrivatBank website: Are not considered a public […]
In case of a shortage of funds for the purchase of housing, some citizens deliberately go to the purchase of an apartment or house “with debts.” If there is a significant debt for utilities, the owner is ready to sell his residential property at a good discount. The amount of such a discount usually covers […]
Entrust the settlement of legal disputes to the SPEAKER team of professionals! Get the highest level of legal services.
Мы готовы приступить к обсуждению Вашей задачи. Вскоре с Вами свяжемся.Back