The Supreme Court on the Concept of Additional Non-Pecuniary Damage

In its recent decision, the Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as the "SC") addressed the issue of compensation for additional non-pecuniary damage as a separate claim in addition to the claim for compensation for pain. In this article, we will look at this decision and the issue together and summarise the positives of this decision, which has significantly strengthened the position of victims and legal certainty in the field of compensation for further non-pecuniary damage.

In its judgment of 25 April 2024, Case No. 25 Cdo 1313/2023, the Supreme Court confirmed that claims for compensation for pain and other non-pecuniary damage are separate, i.e. they arise completely independently of each other and can also be asserted separately. This distinction also follows from the provisions of Section 2958 of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as the "CC"), where a distinction is made between pain suffered and other non-pecuniary damage, and the same also follows from the decision-making practice of the SC.

Other non-pecuniary damage

The SC reiterates that in case of personal injury, the injured party may assert three partial claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage to health pursuant to Section 2958 CC, namely 1) compensation for the pain suffered (pain), 2) compensation for the hardship of social employment if the injury to health has caused an obstacle to a better future for the injured party, and 3) compensation for other non-pecuniary damage.

In this respect, the CC does not specify in any way what other non-pecuniary damages the victim may suffer. However, it is evident that it is immaterial damage to the victim, as distinct from the pain suffered and the obstacle to a better future, as also stated in the commentary literature.

In this respect, the SC emphasises that other non-pecuniary damage includes unexpected and serious complications connected with treatment, in particular those interference with health which do not constitute merely temporary pain (which is compensated for by pain relief), nor physical or psychological harm of a long-term nature (which can normally be compensated for as a hardship on social life), and includes circumstances which do not occur regularly but which increase the intensity of the personal injury suffered beyond the normal level, often for reasons which are already somewhat beyond the disability itself.

Thus, it will typically be circumstances which do not occur on a regular basis, but which increase the injury sustained in a serious way beyond the usual level, often for reasons which go beyond the disability itself.

According to the SC, other non-pecuniary damage may include, for example, specific circumstances outside the usual course of treatment and stabilisation of the health condition which increase the intensity of the health damage suffered beyond the usual level (long-term hospitalisation of the patient isolating the patient from the family, etc. ), the inability to participate in a work or study placement or in a sports match in which the injured person was due to participate as an athlete as a result of the injury, the subsequent total dependence on the care of third parties (need to be placed in an institution, etc.) and increasing difficulties, etc.

Conclusion of the Supreme Court

The SC therefore disagreed with the Court of Appeal's reasoning here, saying that it had wrongly classified the facts described under pain and suffering, arguing that they were temporary difficulties. The NS summarises that such a conclusion cannot be made where the totality of the primary injury in relation to the complications that arose results in the victim's death and is therefore not a normal course of treatment, where the combination of injury and complications results in the victim's death and therefore a definite impact on the state of health (not just a temporary transitory inconvenience).

The SC classifies extraordinary circumstances of a higher degree of intensity as further non-pecuniary damage, with the understanding that ordinary circumstances are already to be taken into account in the assessment of pain. At the same time, however, the SC emphasises the need to provide victims with full compensation for all the harm suffered. Further non-pecuniary damage must thus be considered a key element of this compensation and is intended to ensure that the victim receives adequate compensation for all the hardship suffered in connection with the treatment and associated complications. The Supreme Court has thus taken into account the opinion of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitutional Court") expressed in its ruling in Case No. II. ÚS 1564/20, in which the Constitutional Court criticised the earlier restrictive interpretation of the SC of other non-pecuniary damage and emphasised the constitutionally guaranteed principle of full compensation for personal injury.

The positive aspects of this decision are thus clearly the strengthening of the position of the victims and at the same time an increase in the level of legal certainty in the area of compensation for other non-pecuniary damage, which was previously rather low.

If you have any questions in connection with health law or related issues, please do not hesitate to contact us. We will be happy to learn more about your case and provide you with appropriate legal assistance.

Responsible lawyer: Mgr. Mgr. Barbora Dlabolová, Kateřina Chaloupková contributed to this article.