Before the revolution in Russia there was no practice of compensation for moral harm. The law at that time lacked general rules that could regulate this area. 
Pre-revolutionary situation
Cases of compensation for non-pecuniary damage were considered only if the damage was indirectly reflected in the property interests of the victims. Nevertheless, in the pre-revolutionary Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure there was a relative analogue of the legal institution under consideration. In particular, the law established the possibility for the victim to demand the payment of a penalty in his favor. The amount of payment (magnitude of dishonor), depending on the state or rank of the offended, as well as the attitude of the offender towards him, should not have been more than fifty rubles. Russian lawyers considered personal insult as a probable basis for compensation for moral harm. Nevertheless, in most cases, the presentation of such a claim was considered unacceptable.
Change after 1917
Before the revolution, for a Russian nobleman, challenging the offender to a duel was a natural reaction to the insult. Requirement of damages non-material character was allowed only for the "vile" class. A nobleman who would ask for money for the insult inflicted would have closed the road to decent society forever. After the revolution, the thinking of Russian people has changed somewhat. Nevertheless, this did not change the negative (albeit for other reasons) attitude towards monetary compensation for moral damage. Opinion on the inadmissibility of such payments was predominant. In this regard, the legislation did not provide for a procedure by which compensation for non-pecuniary damage would be made. There was no definition of such compensation.
Socialist consciousness
Based on the existing doctrine, the courts consistently refused to satisfy the rarely submitted claims for compensation. The principle of compensation for damage of this nature was considered as class alien to the existing socialist legal consciousness. The doctrine of that time was based on demagogic ideas about the impossibility of measuring the dignity and honor of Soviet man in despicable metal. However, the fact is that supporters of compensation did not make such statements. Their idea was not to measure non-property rights in monetary terms, but to impute the offender to commit property actions. It was supposed to be aimed at smoothing the severity of moral experiences.
That is, compensation for non-pecuniary damage did not act as the equivalent of the suffering suffered by the victim, but as a source of positive emotions that could partially or fully repay the negative consequences caused to the human psyche. The positive views expressed on the problem before the thirties did not affect the instances or the lawmakers. Subsequently, these discussions completely ceased. Socialist propaganda contributed to the rooting of ideas about the inadmissibility of the assessment and compensation for non-pecuniary damage in money. It reached such a scale that even the rare press reports appearing in the press on awarding compensations were perceived as foreign to the existing legal regulation. 
New time
The concept of non-pecuniary damage was legalized in 1990 in the Law regulating the activities of the media and the press. The normative act, however, did not reveal its essence. In Art.39 it was stipulated that the non-property damage that a person suffered while disseminating information and media discrediting his dignity and honor to the person should be recovered from the guilty organizations, officials and citizens. In the same provision it was established that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage was established by the court.
Subsequently, Russian lawmakers made a number of changes to certain regulations (for example, the Law on the Environment, Protection of Consumer Rights, the Rules for Compensation for Damage by an Employer in Connection with an Accident with an Employee at an Enterprise, and others). However, this situation raised doubts about the possibility of using general tort to recover non-pecuniary damage. At the same time, a large number of normative acts that regulated relations in the area under consideration, together with the management of other interactions of different nature, was accompanied by various difficulties in the actual application of the norms. These problems were exacerbated by the establishment of different deadlines for the adoption and introduction of laws and amendments to them. 
Compensation for non-pecuniary damage in civil law
Currently, the institution in question is regulated by the rules of the Civil Code. Along with this, issues of compensation for non-pecuniary damage are covered in the Labor Code, the Code of Administrative Offenses, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Code, the Federal Law "On Mass Media", on consumer protection, the status of military personnel and others. There are general provisions in the Supreme Civil Code that apply to all cases, including situations where damage is caused as part of a contractual relationship and when the victim and the guilty party are not bound by any agreements. The law does not establish any special means of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Compensation can be carried out together with material damage or separately from it. A certain amount is always recovered from the inflicter of harm.
Subjects
Who is entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage? In civil law, the person to whom intangible goods on which the assault was committed. Their list is given in Art. 151. Based on the list of intangible goods, a physical person usually acts as a victim. However, the rules apply to legal entities. So, according to Art. 152, clause 5, a citizen about whom information defaming his dignity is disseminated is entitled to demand compensation for moral and property damage. Under paragraph 7 of this article, a legal entity also has the same opportunity if information was released that adversely affected its business reputation. The actions of the violator may be manifested in the disclosure of information, the prohibition of the distribution of which is established by law. For example, this applies to medical or legal secrets. Unlawful behavior can also be expressed in the publication of information that is not true and defames business reputation, the publication of personal correspondence without the consent and knowledge of the owner. 
Amount of damage
The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage does not depend on the size and presence of property damage. When determining the amount of damage are taken into account:
- The degree of moral and physical suffering that is associated with the personal characteristics of the victim.
- The nature of the experience, which is evaluated taking into account the circumstances and individual specific features of the victim.
- Degree of guilt.
- The requirements of justice and reasonableness.
- Other circumstances noteworthy.
So, for example, if the distribution of information that does not correspond to reality is compensated for moral damage, a court decision is made taking into account the content and nature of the publication, the range of distribution of this information. The voluntary refutation of these data by the editors also matters. The lawsuit for compensation for non-pecuniary damage does not apply.
Accountability: conditions
The grounds for compensation for non-pecuniary damage are listed in Art. 150. The list given in this article is not considered exhaustive. Compensation is imputed if damage was caused to health. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage shall be granted in case of encroachment on life, business reputation, violation of the inviolability of family secrets and other non-property goods that are inalienable, absolute and non-transferable to other persons. When they are infringed, a special law is not required that would provide for the possibility of compensation for damage. In Art. 151 provides that the recovery of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in violation of interests not specified in Art. 150, is carried out only in cases established by law. This, in particular, concerns the circumstances cited in Art. 1099, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code. Compensation can be recovered in case of violation of both obligations and property rights. For example, such an opportunity is provided for in the Federal Law governing the protection of consumer interests. The legislation identifies 4 main conditions under which compensation for non-pecuniary damage is assigned:
- The fault of the offender.
- The presence of moral damages.
- Illegality of actions / omissions.
- The relationship between the behavior of the offender and moral harm.
Important circumstances
Considering that the procedure by which compensation for non-pecuniary damage is established is regulated by several normative acts put into effect at different periods, in order to ensure timely and correct resolution of the dispute, it is necessary in each case to identify the true nature of the relationship that existed between the parties, determine the provisions of the law, which apply to them. It is also necessary to establish whether the law allows for compensation for damage in a particular situation when there were actions that entailed negative consequences. The court is obliged to find out what exactly confirmed the fact of causing physical or moral suffering to the victim, what specific behavior they inflicted and under what circumstances, what amount the victim considers sufficient to recover from the guilty.
Illegal behavior
When considering a dispute, evidence of unlawfulness in action / inaction should be presented. It manifests itself in the violation of the intangible good belonging to the person, or the infringement of his personal interests. An action becomes unlawful if it is expressly prohibited by law, contrary to it or another normative act, unilateral transaction, contract, other basis of obligations. Inaction becomes such if there is a legal obligation to carry out an activity in accordance with the situation. However, the existence of proven illegal behavior will not be sufficient to hold accountable. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage is provided in case of revealing a causal link between illegal action / inaction and the occurrence of consequences.
Causality
In order to recover compensation from the guilty party, it must be established that his behavior has become a condition for the victim to suffer non-pecuniary damage. For example, due to the seller’s refusal to replace the product, the disease worsened. As a rule, the solution of the question of causality is straightforward. However, in some cases, the establishment of this relationship is accompanied by difficulties. In such cases, it is advisable to rely on a theory based, in turn, on the provisions arising from the general philosophical doctrine:
- Causation is an objective connection between phenomena. It exists regardless of human consciousness. In this regard, it will be incorrect to be guided by the degree or possibility of the intruder's prediction of the negative consequences. The likelihood of assuming that losses will occur is subjective and only relevant in establishing the guilt of the attacker.
- The effect and cause only matter in relation to a particular case. Unlawful behavior only in that case will be a source of negative consequences when it is connected with them directly (directly).
Explanation
A direct (direct) connection exists when there are no events relevant to the civil law obligation between illegal behavior and consequences in the chain of events. If such conditions exist (force majeure or third parties), then causality will be indirect. This, in turn, means that illegal behavior is outside the scope of the case considered by legal liability. This, in turn, takes him beyond significant causality. Thus, compensation for non-pecuniary damage must be recovered if there is only a direct connection between the behavior and the consequences.
Wines
This is another condition for liability. This is due to the fact that attracting a person and his subsequent punishment performs in a certain way a preventive (protective) function. However, the ever-present threat of liability may significantly reduce the initiative of participants in legal relations. To prevent such a situation, it is necessary to create conditions under which the subjects would have a firm belief that they would not be attracted for the unforeseen consequences of their behavior. In this regard, liability under civil law is based on the principles of guilt. She acts as a subjective condition. Guilt is a certain mental attitude of a person to his personal behavior, which expresses neglect of the interests of individuals or society as a whole. According to Art. 401 CC, it can manifest itself in the form of negligence and intent. In the latter case, guilt exists when it is evident from a person’s behavioral acts that they are aimed at deliberately breaking the law.
Carelessness
She often accompanies violations of the law. In such cases, intent is not visible in human behavior. It is not aimed at conscious violation. Along with this, the behavior of the subject lacks the necessary (due) prudence and attentiveness. This is characteristic of both simple and gross negligence. However, there are differences between these forms of guilt. They are not reflected in the legislation and in the explanations of authorized structures. In this regard, the establishment of a specific form of guilt should be individual for each case. 
Controversial issues
In civil law, guilty determination is carried out taking into account the possibility of a person realizing the negative consequences. Behavior accompanied by gross negligence violates simple rules, the observance of which the onset of harm is excluded. Simple negligence at the same time acts as a consequence of some inaccuracies, omissions, and so on. Here, however, it must be recalled that in civil law there is a presumption of guilt. According to it, a person is considered guilty until such time as he proves otherwise. Typical today are cases where citizens submit claims for compensation for damage resulting from the collapse of banks and other financial corporations. However, in this case, investors suffered material damage.
Non-pecuniary damage in this case arises from property relations, which means it should not be recovered. In Art. 13 of the Federal Law governing the protection of consumers, however, the possibility of compensation for non-property damage is provided. But, again, this provision is applicable in the presence of the fault of the causer. It is almost impossible to prove it in such cases. Moreover, all investors alienate their funds themselves with the expectation of a certain profit. Their actions involve normal business risk.Under certain circumstances, depositors, in fact, experience the negative consequences of such financial failures. In such cases, issues of compensation for non-pecuniary damage are always resolved negatively. As an exception, the defendant may be required to indemnify in the absence of fault.
