Russia must pay an internally displaced person UAH 3.5 million: a court in Mykolaiv has recognized the moral damage

The plaintiff left Donetsk as a child and later lost his grandfather in shelling

Цей матеріал також доступний:

11 Oct 2026

0 702

Рішення суду в Миколаєві про компенсацію моральної шкоди переселенцю з Донецька

Inhulskyi District Court of Mykolaiv partially granted the claim of a man who was forced to leave Donetsk as a child because of Russian aggression. The court ordered the Russian Federation to pay him UAH 3,500,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The full text of the default judgment was prepared on October 2, 2026. According to reyestr.court.gov.ua.

The man filed the claim in May 2025. He valued his emotional suffering at UAH 7,131,600, citing his forced relocation, the loss of his ability to live at home, and the death of a loved one.

According to the plaintiff, the occupation of Donetsk deprived him and his parents of the opportunity to live in their own home, use their family property, and maintain their customary way of life. After relocating, he was granted internally displaced person status and now lives in Mykolaiv. In 2019, he was also granted the status of a child affected by hostilities and armed conflict.

In his claim, the man described the property his family had left in their apartment in Donetsk: they had renovated it, installed new windows, and bought furniture and household appliances. He said that representatives of the so-called “DPR” later took over the apartment. Since then, the family has been unable to use either the home or the belongings left inside.

The death of the plaintiff’s grandfather was another devastating loss. According to the case materials, on July 2, 2024, Russian occupying forces shelled a house in the settlement of New York, in Donetsk Oblast’s Bakhmut District. The building was damaged, and the grandfather, who was in the yard, was killed.

The plaintiff said that after her husband’s death and the loss of her home, his grandmother suffered a stroke. She needs ongoing care and treatment. The man explained that his experiences, the loss of his family home, and his grandfather’s death had caused him prolonged emotional suffering.

A representative of the Russian Federation did not attend the hearing or submit a response to the claim. The case was therefore considered in absentia, on the basis of the written evidence available.

The court justified its authority to hear the case by referring to the practice of the Supreme Court: Ukrainian courts may consider claims for damages caused by Russian aggression without applying Russia’s jurisdictional immunity.

When assessing the non-pecuniary damage, the court took into account the man’s forced departure from his usual place of residence, his inability to return home, and the loss of his former social connections. His grandfather’s death and his grandmother’s serious condition added to his distress.

The court found the plaintiff’s right to compensation justified, but deemed the amount claimed excessive. The award was set in light of the circumstances of the case, the nature and duration of the suffering, and the principles of reasonableness and fairness.

In addition to compensation for the plaintiff, the Russian Federation was ordered to pay UAH 8,165.25 in court fees to the state of Ukraine. The court dismissed the rest of the claims. The defendant may apply to this court to have the default judgment reviewed, in writing and in accordance with the procedure established by law.