Three types of non-pecuniary damage

The material contains the most basic information about the law. Rtf format As part of the Legal Digest, this material costs less than 1 ruble. On October 2, 2019, the plaintiff’s appeal was denied by the Moscow City Court for refusing to satisfy the claim, the plaintiffs proved that there was a noise level in the apartment above, conversations, a bathroom, children playing musical instruments were clearly audible, this was proved as an examination , ordered by the plaintiffs, as well as by the expertise appointed by the court, and the court refused to satisfy the claim, why this happened can be understood from the text of the appellate ruling stating that refusing to satisfy when filing claims for non-pecuniary damage, the trial court indicated that the current legislation of the Russian Federation did not provide for the possibility of compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by violation of property rights in the form of noise caused by non-compliance of sound insulation with the requirements of the rules, this could happen only in one case - two different representatives , a lawyer in the court of first instance, and then a lawyer in the court of appeal, most likely could not clearly state the type of moral harm, in the court of first instance the plaintiffs the plaintiffs were forced to repeatedly clarify the claims, I will repeat this if I have a lawyer, but in the end we did not decide what moral damage they ask the court to compensate, the court cited the plaintiffs´ claim for violation of supposedly property rights, and refused, indicating that the legislation of the Russian Federation compensation for this type of non-pecuniary damage is not provided, according to my assumption this is the fault of lawyers only.