A court awarded a resident of the Odesa region 5,000 euros in compensation from Russia

<span><span><span><span><span><span>The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, which had partially granted the claim of a resident of the Odesa region and ordered the Russian Federation to pay 5,000 euros in compensation for emotional distress, rather than the 50,000 euros sought by the plaintiff. It ruled that the amount of compensation for moral damages resulting from the war must be determined based on the specific circumstances of the case. </span></span></span></span></span></span>

<span><span><span><span><span><span>This is stated in the Supreme Court’s ruling. </span></span></span></span></span></span>

In January 2024, the woman filed a lawsuit against the aggressor state, demanding monetary compensation for the psychological suffering she had endured. She justified her claim by stating that from the very first days of the major war, she had lived in constant anxiety and psychological stress, and the need to regularly take shelter with her young child in bomb shelters during air raid sirens had completely disrupted their normal way of life. The plaintiff estimated the amount of compensation for the shock she experienced and the violation of her rights at 50,000 euros.

<span><span><span><span><span><span>The court of first instance, whose decision was subsequently upheld by the appellate court, partially granted the claims and ordered the Russian Federation to pay 5,000 euros for the moral suffering caused. It took into account the continuous nature of the violation of the claimant’s rights but noted that the Odesa region was not located in a zone of direct combat operations, and the claimant herself had not provided evidence of property damage or forced evacuation. Since the awarded amount did not satisfy the plaintiff, her attorney filed a cassation appeal, insisting that the claim be granted in full.</span></span></span></span></span></span>

<span><span><span><span><span><span>Earlier in Odesa, the director of a driving school was sentenced for fraud involving a deceased employee. The deceased </span></span></span></span></span></span>driving instructor remained on the school’s payroll for several more years. The court concluded that the director knowingly submitted false information to prevent the school from losing its state accreditation.

Юлія Калабайда