At the end of 2016, I was approached by a citizen "P" for advice, as the decision in civil case 2-3413/16 Solntsevsky district court of Moscow where she had collected a large sum of money for compensation for moral damage allegedly caused to the neighbor.
After reviewing the court's decision, I was advised to go to the court of appeals and to appeal the decision, because it is not based on law. Citizen P was asked to provide this legal service, as it is, referring to the court of first instance, defending their rights without a lawyer or a lawyer in connection with this, and lost the case.
I have prepared the appeal and appeal definition of the Moscow city court on case No. 33-9226 the decision of the Solntsevo district court of Moscow was cancelled.
In its determination on appeal the court pointed out that checking the case, after hearing the representative of the defendant lawyer Lygina Vladislav Mikhailovich, who supported arguments of the complaint in full and the plaintiff, who objected to the cancellation of a court decision, the trial chamber came to the correct conclusion that the court's decision is subject to cancellation by virtue of its illegality.
As follows from the case materials, the court of first instance has satisfied the declared claim requirements in full, as came to the conclusion that the fault of the defendant, the plaintiff suffered moral harm and mental suffering.
In support of the claim the plaintiff indicated that about 22 hours on the landing near the apartment between the sides have occurred verbal conflict, during which the defendant struck the plaintiff three punches to face, head and hands, causing physical pain and injuries - multiple injuries of soft tissues of the head, abrasions to the upper lip, soft tissue contusion and abrasion of the left hand, therefore, the plaintiff presented the certificate of branch No. 4 GBUZ optp DZM, the decision about refusal in excitation of criminal case.
However, the case file is not available evidence to reliably demonstrate that the injuries suffered by the claimant as a result of unlawful actions of the defendant described in the statement of claim, which is a prerequisite for the possibility of imposing obligations on compensation of moral harm to the defendant.
In addition, the fact of bodily injury, is punishable in accordance with article 116 of the criminal code, however, the plaintiff in the court a statement about bringing a person to criminal liability did not apply, the court, the defendant is not found guilty of committing a crime under article 116 of the criminal code. In addition, the defendant was not brought to administrative responsibility under article 6.1.1 of the administrative code.
The plaintiff's arguments that these circumstances were confirmed in the testimony, the Board senilis critical, since the causal connection between the defendant's actions and the consequences of the plaintiff's admissible evidence has not been confirmed.
Thus, the Board of appeals came to the correct conclusion that the admissible evidence, evidence of physical or mental suffering of the plaintiff due to unlawful actions of the defendant, not represented, and the court did not produced.
In such circumstances, the findings of the trial courts that there are grounds for satisfaction of claim requirements of the claimant about compensation of moral harm may not be recognized as lawful and legitimate, and the panel of judges decided that the court's decision is subject to cancellation with acceptance of the new decision on refusal to the claimant in satisfaction of requirements about compensation of moral harm and recovered in the case of court costs.
The citizen "N" I helped to make a statement about the recovery of legal costs spent for my services, which it subsequently ordered the plaintiff, who said illegal claims.
All citizens are encouraged to solve problems in the courts independently, and to involve experts in law, it's lawyers or specialized lawyers.
Sincerely, lawyer Vladislav Mikhailovich.