(Judgment of the Supreme Court of 26 January 2026, File No. 30 Cdo 3059/2025)
In this decision, the Supreme Court clarified the significance of circumstances on the part of the tortfeasor when determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It dealt in particular with the question of whether intentional, malicious or otherwise particularly reprehensible conduct by the tortfeasor may be taken into account when determining the amount of compensation for pain and suffering and compensation for impairment of social life.
The claimant sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the maladministration of a court enforcement officer, who unlawfully evicted her and her children from their house in the course of enforcement proceedings. As a result of this conduct, the claimant suffered serious psychological harm, giving rise to a claim for compensation for pain and suffering and compensation for impairment of social life. The lower courts awarded her compensation for personal injury, but refused to take into account the alleged circumstances consisting in the intentional and malicious conduct of the court enforcement officer and her subsequent approach to the matter.
The appellate court concluded that, when determining the amount of compensation for personal injury, the decisive factor is primarily the consequences for the injured party’s health, and that the tortfeasor’s motivation or conduct is not relevant for determining the amount of compensation. In its view, compensation for non-pecuniary damage does not have a preventive or punitive character and circumstances on the part of the tortfeasor therefore cannot be taken into account when determining the amount of compensation.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion. It emphasised that Section 2957 of the Civil Code expressly requires circumstances worthy of special consideration to be taken into account when determining the amount of satisfaction, including, among other things, intentional infliction of harm, the use of deceit, abuse of the injured party’s dependency or other particularly reprehensible circumstances.
According to the Supreme Court, it is therefore not possible, when determining the amount of compensation, to automatically disregard the motivation and subsequent conduct of the tortfeasor, particularly where there are indications that the harm was caused intentionally or that the tortfeasor subsequently attempted to conceal or downplay his or her unlawful conduct. Such circumstances may increase the intensity of the interference with the injured party’s rights and must be assessed by the court on an individual basis.
The Supreme Court therefore quashed the appellate court’s decision and returned the case to it for further proceedings. The appellate court will now be obliged to assess whether, in the case at hand, there were circumstances worthy of special consideration within the meaning of Section 2957 of the Civil Code and whether they should be reflected in the amount of compensation awarded.
The decision confirms that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage is not determined solely by the extent of the consequences suffered by the injured party, but may also be influenced by the nature and seriousness of the tortfeasor’s unlawful conduct. Intentional or malicious conduct may therefore constitute grounds for increasing the satisfaction awarded.
Download Legal Update 06/2026 here.