ახლობელი ადამიანის გარდაცვალების შემთხვევაში მორალური ზიანის ანაზღაურება საქართველოს სამართლის მიხედვით
| creativework.keywords | Comparative, Rights, Damage | |
| dc.contributor.author | გაიპარაშვილი, მარიამ / Gaiparashvili, Mariam | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-30T08:30:48Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-07-30T08:30:48Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The author of the article analyses issues concerning the claims in wrongful death cases. In particular, conclusions are made on the basis of considering relevant statutory regulations, comparative analysis, academic doctrine and case law. Relatives are denied in fatal injury cases insofar as emotional harm of the third party is at stake. Moreover compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not awarded even if the loss of the direct victim causes an injury to the relative’s health, i.e if the emotional harm of the relative qualifies as an illness. This conclusion is derived from existing regulation and case law including three exceptional decisions from the Supreme Court of Georgia. The article provides comparative analyses of regulatory framework of Georgia and other European countries in relation to non-pecuniary loss of secondary victims. The statutory regulations and practice of Austria, Germany, Great Britain, France and Soft law governing the issue of non-pecuniary damages in wrongful death cases, are sequentially and separately evaluated in the article. The awarding of compensation for non-pecuniary loss to relatives of direct victims of fatal accidents, which is accepted by the ECtHR practice, is also established in the majority of European countries, but in different ways. At the domestic level varying approaches are taken to the question of whether mere mental suffering not amounting to a psychiatric disorder is sufficient or whether a psychological injury which can be qualified as illness is required. Similar to the ECtHR case-law, in some national systems not only family members are granted compensation for bereavement/non-pecuniary loss, but independent from the civil law status between the victim and the third party so are persons with a ‘strong emotional bond’ to the victim. The article, inter alia, analyses the latest ECtHR case Sarishvili-Bolkvadze v. Georgia and argues that denial of non-pecuniary damages violates Article 2 of the Convention. In order to overcome the problems identified in the article author emphasizes the necessity of amendments to the legislation, together with unifying case law with ECtHR practice. The author concludes that the latest decision of ECtHR is a legitimate basis of subsequent amendments in the legislation | |
| dc.identifier.citation | კერძო სამართლის მიმოხილვა, №2, 2019, 159-177 / PRIVATE LAW REVIEW, №2, 2019, 159-177 | |
| dc.identifier.isbn | 978-9941-25-707-0 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://dspace.tsu.ge/handle/123456789/2507 | |
| dc.language.iso | other | |
| dc.publisher | მერიდიანი /Meridiani | |
| dc.title | ახლობელი ადამიანის გარდაცვალების შემთხვევაში მორალური ზიანის ანაზღაურება საქართველოს სამართლის მიხედვით | |
| dc.title.alternative | COMPENSATION FOR NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES IN WRONGFUL DEATH CASES ACCORDING TO THE GEORGIAN LAW | |
| dc.type | Article |