CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 avril 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 52 April 2003 Zavaloka v. Latvia (dec.) - 58447/00 Decision 29.4.2003 [Section I] Article 13 Effective remedy Refusal of courts to award non-pecuniary damages in respect of the death of her daughter in a road traffic accident: admissible In September 1996, the applicant's twelve-year-old daughter was run over by a motor vehicle driven by A.A. She died from her injuries. In March 1997, the court of first instance found A.A. guilty of failing to provide assistance to a person in danger and of causing serious injuries by failing to observe the road safety regulations; it sentenced A.A. to three years' immediate imprisonment. In September 1997, the applicant applied to the court of first instance for compensation for the non-pecuniary harm sustained as a result of her daughter's death. Her application was dismissed, as the court considered that the Civil Code made no provision for such compensation. The applicant appealed against that decision before the regional court, which by judgment of March 1998 allowed her appeal. The court acknowledged that the Civil Code did not expressly provide for compensation for non-pecuniary harm and further stated that no definition of harm of that type was to be found in that Code. Referring, in particular, to Article 1835 of the Civil Code, which defines the general obligation to make reparation for harm caused to others, the court none the less held that the applicant was entitled to expect A.A. to pay damages covering her non-pecuniary loss. A.A. appealed on a point of law to the Supreme Court, which held that Article 1635 of the Civil Code concerned only compensation for material harm and, by judgment of March 1999, set aside the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted the case to the Regional Court. In its judgment, the Supreme Court stated that, contrary to what the Regional Court had claimed, the Civil Code did contain a definition of non-pecuniary harm and that the applicant's situation did not correspond to any of the cases, specifically provided for, which gave entitlement to compensation for non-pecuniary loss. By judgment of August 1999, the Regional Court to which the case had been transferred dismissed the applicant's application. Her appeal on a point of law was then dismissed. Admissible under Articles 2 and 13.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes