Search
Search Results
-
Jurisdictional Constants and Doubtful Questions in Recent Hungarian Jurisdiction of Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss
Views:58Since 1992, date of Constitutional Court’s decision No. 34/1992, certain rules cannot be found in Hungarian Civil Code. There is only a part of a sentence that gives right to any injured person to claim damages in case of personal injuries. More than 10 years after the cassation we are able to look through the legal practice in connection with damages for non-pecuniary loss. The recent re-codifying process plans a brand new institution to substitute and follow damages for non pecuniary loss: pain award. To establish a decent regulation of pain award, jurisdiction of the last decade cannot be neglected. This essay aims to gather typical and crystallized methods of judgements in certain cases, which could be seen as essential and accepted unwritten rules of jurisdiction concerning this field of damages.
One of the most difficult problems to solve is the question of amount. This field of damages for non-pecuniary loss is always problematic, because all of the cases are different. Although there are similarities between cases if we examine just damages themselves, but due to the difference of human personality it is almost impossible to give exact phrases and rules to help our judges. We can say that highest amounts are generated by assaults against physical integrity and life. Examination during a legal procedure concentrates on the stress caused by the injury, number of injured rights, age of the injured person and the durability of the harm. If the injured person contributed to the injury, it generates reduced amount of damages.
Method of compensation is really simple for the first time. Hungarian legal system knows two different types for the method of damages: in kind or in money. Former one is inapplicable for non-pecuniary losses. If we compensate in money, there are two solutions: injured person can get the whole sum immediately or we can choose allowance as well. The adaptation of allowance is rather small in Hungary, in spite of the advantages this legal institution could offer. It does not mean res iudicata, so it is flexible and offers opportunity to adjust to changed circumstances in the future: both duration and amount of allowance could be changed.
It is an interesting question whether personal circumstances of the misdoer could be examined when calculating the amount of allowance. The answer is not unambiguous. Civil law focuses on compensation for the injured party, not the punishment of the misdoer. In spite of this essential lemma, it is necessary to take into account the solvency of the defendant, if we want the plaintiff to get the adjudged amount really.
Youth is not the only reason of allowance, sometimes old age could be a well-based legal ground for application of this method of compensation as well. It is really important to examine the personal circumstances of the injured party to choose between these two methods: which one serves the aim of compensation, moderation of lost joy of life the most.
Civil Code precludes the possibility to apply both methods together for the same plaintiff. In my opinion the solution of German Civil Code (BGB) should be considered. BGB allows both methods together. It means that possibilities could be wider and fit better to the actual case and its circumstances.
Although obligation of damages has two parties traditionally, in a legal procedure of damages for non-pecuniary loss this bipolar situation can be proven false. On the part of the misdoer it is an interesting question what kind of damages can be blamed the state. In Hungary we can meet rules order the responsibility of the state in the field of medical damages or damages for unlawful arrest and illegal imprisonment. Amounts of damages are the highest in these situations.
On the part of the injured person an often argued problem the position of secondary victims’ claims. These claims are always problematic, because personality rights belong closely to the person himself and there is no possibility to inherit them. Hungarian Civil Code admits compensation for relatives only in case of injuring reputation of a dead person. There are several decisions in which courts admit these claims on the ground of their sui generis base. It is a decent solution, but because of the uneven jurisdiction it needs codifying.
We can say that there are a lot of jurisdictional constants in Hungary in connection with damages for non-pecuniary loss. These are easy to collect and most of them are able to be codified in a strictly non-taxative style. But this examination showed that doubtful questions can also be found in Hungary especially the application of allowance, claims of secondary victims. To arrange these problems, starting point should be jurisdiction itself.
-
Judicial practice regarding the compensation for personal injuries caused by the circumstances of penal institutions, violating the fundamental rights of convicts and detainees of other dues
49-62Views:305The studied topic is the judicial practice regarding the compensation for personal injuries caused by the circumstances of penal institutions, which violate the fundamental rights of convicts and detainees of other dues. Dual research questions have been posed because of the characteristics of the covered topic. The first one is related to civil law and is about demandants’, defendants’ and courts’ attitudes and tendencies relating to the topic in question. The second question, inseparably stemming from the previous one, is from the field of penal execution: what kind of traits can be abstracted from the judicial decisions when it comes to the condition of Hungarian penal institutions. To answer these, empirical methodology must be applied. Accordingly, I examined 91 judicial decisions from 2014 to 2020. Thus, this study depicts the entirety of the relevant time range, meaning that the demandants’, defendants’ and courts’ characteristics are introduced in their arc of development, rather than pointwisely. In my study I delineate the demandants’ actions firstly: their claims, their supposedly violated rights and the ontological phenomena causing harm. Secondly, as displaying the defendants’ statements of defence, I specify the legal arguments brought on in order to support the claim that the penal institutions caused no harm to those held captive, or that they cannot be obliged to pay compensation. Afterwards, I examine the judicial practice. Firstly, I write about the ways courts treat the claims of ascertainment, namely whether or not the rights of those who are captivated were violated. Subsequently, I portray the claims of detain, about which I illustrate the relevant regime of liability and its partial requirements. Then I write about the matrix of the compensation for personal injury and the indemnification for the prison circumstances, the relation and the delimitation of the two. Finally, I answer the research questions. I draw an ideal model about the first question, in which the parties adduce correctly and make fair judgements. By these the demandants can make sure that the violation of their rights is ascertained and that they are given compensation. By following the model, the defendant can achieve the lowest amount of compensation possible, while the court can make the correct decision from a dogmatic point of view. As for the penal executive question, I give suggestions to solve the problem of the circumstances of penal institutions violating fundamental rights.
-
Functional Analysis of Damage Charges
97-117.Views:203Replacing the legal institution for non-pecuniary damages burdensome by previous theoretical and practical contradictions, Act V of 2013 (Civil Code) introduces damage charges as a separate sanction for violation of personal rights, which has dual functions: on the one hand, it aims for the person being injured in its personal rights receive a monetary allowance that approximates or compensates for the non-material damage suffered. On the other hand, it can also be considered as a punishment under private law for the prevention of similar infringements, as a deterrent.
According to the intended interpretation, the damage charge can only be applied if it is able to fulfill its function, i.e. if no non-pecuniary damage can be detected for which the damage charge is intended for proportional compensation (primarily), it has no place at all since in the case of infringements leaving the personality untouched, only the punitive function would be exercised, which is completely incompatible with the inherently remedial, corrective nature of private law. According to the unanimous opinion of the legal literature, the compensatory function should have priority and private punishment only take precedence of a secondary nature. On the basis of my work, it is noticeable that judges also consider damage charges as a legal instrument to repair the immaterial injuries suffered and to compensate for the lost pleasures of life, and to not order it upon preventive reasons solely, but in the plurality of cases, preventive function is being evaluated as a factor enhancing the amount of the damage. In my study, I wish to analyze from several aspects, how the dual function of the damage charge is assessed by the courts concerning present cases, by highlighting which nature is protruding concerning the amount or the legal basis. As the research is basically empirical, I will examine through as many judgments as possible, what aspects the courts evaluate in the framework of the compensational (e.g.: physical injuries, mental changes, age, family life of the victim, change in lifestyle, etc.) and of the preventive function (e.g. the gravity of the infringement, its protracted nature, etc.). Finally, I would like to answer the central question of my thesis: what function does practice attribute to the payment of damage charges.