Prejudiciul de agrement

Rezumat

The world of damage includes “sensitive” areas and moral damage remains a current issue, as a result of the constant (sometimes difficult and controversial) efforts to qualify the notions, to identify the ways of “compensation” and to establish the compensation criteria.

An established category, the loss of amenity retains some uncertainties with regard to the scope of the notion and the activities with which it is related. In the context of bodily injury, the non‑pecuniary component is structured in distinct damages, which have some common notes and, at the same time, notable elements of difference (loss of amenity, aesthetic damage, loss of hope for achieving a normal family life project, etc.). The loss of amenity has generated an extensive practice in comparative law. The courts and (as the case may be) the administrative courts were concerned with specifying the limits of the notion and the optimal substantiation of the compensation for this damage. The limits of the notion have fluctuated over time –
a circumstance that has led to confusion, overlapping in compensation or refusal of compensation, with the reasoning of including the loss of amenity in other categories of the moral damage. Considering that the texts of law do not provide the criteria for awarding compensation, the indemnity follows the benchmarks validated in the case law and developed in the specialized literature. The analysis of the activities related to the loss of amenity is defining for the separation of the moral damage caused to the direct victim and for modulating the indemnity.

Keywords: bodily injury; loss of amenity; notion; compensation; benchmarks.