Relatives Can Receive Moral Damages Awarded to the Deceased — The Supreme Court Explained How

In the Supreme Court ruling in case No. 459/2511/23 dated May 29, 2026, the Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Cassation Civil Court, considered the issue of substituting the claimant in the writ of execution after the plaintiff's death and determined whether such death can be regarded as a newly discovered circumstance for reviewing the decision on awarding moral damages.

The practical significance of this case lies in distinguishing situations where the right to compensation for moral damages is personal and does not allow succession, from those where such right has already transformed into a court-awarded monetary claim that can pass to heirs.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Lviv region to recover UAH 45,000 in moral damages caused by health damage due to an occupational disease.

The city court satisfied the claim. UAH 45,000 in moral damages were recovered from the defendant. This decision was later upheld by the appellate court.

After the first instance court decision was made, the plaintiff died. His wife applied to the court with a request to substitute the claimant in the writ of execution as the legal successor and heir.

In turn, the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Lviv region filed a motion to review the decision based on newly discovered circumstances, arguing that the plaintiff's death became known only after receiving the request for claimant substitution, before the decision came into legal force. According to the applicant, the proceedings should have been closed, and the deceased's wife could not acquire the right to the awarded funds.

The courts of first and appellate instances denied the motion to review the decision based on newly discovered circumstances and granted the request for claimant substitution. The Pension Fund appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court indicated that procedural succession is the replacement of a party or third person by another person (successor) due to the withdrawal of the respective subject from the process, whereby all procedural rights and obligations of the predecessor pass to the successor, who continues the participation of the predecessor in civil proceedings.

The grounds for procedural succession can only be legal facts that arose during the court proceedings in the case.

The court emphasized that procedural succession is possible only when succession has occurred in property relations.

Thus, when deciding on involving successors of the parties, the court must establish the presence or absence of succession based on substantive law norms in the disputed legal relations.

Next, the Court referred to civil law provisions on inheritance of the right to moral damages and noted that the right to compensation for moral damages awarded by the court to the deceased during their lifetime passes to the heir.

The Supreme Court stated that the right to compensation for moral damages is personal because moral damage causes a negative impact on the personal non-property rights of a physical person. Therefore, paragraph three of Article 1230 of the Civil Code provides the rule that the right to compensation for moral damages awarded by the court to the deceased during their lifetime is inheritable.

If the deceased filed a claim for moral damages and died during the proceedings, procedural succession for the claim for moral damages is not allowed.

Evaluating the circumstances of this particular case, the Supreme Court noted that the courts correctly took into account that the deceased filed a claim for moral damages and died after the first instance court decision was made. In such a case, the right to compensation for moral damages awarded by the court to the deceased during their lifetime is inherited.

The Court also pointed out that the existence of a court decision satisfying the creditor's claims, which has not been executed by the debtor, does not terminate the obligational legal relations between the parties.

The procedural purpose of substituting a party in ongoing enforcement proceedings, as well as in the case (in the enforcement document), is to obtain enforcement of the court decision within the enforcement proceedings.

Given the established circumstances, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts about the grounds for substituting the claimant.

The Court noted that the procedure for reviewing a final court decision based on newly discovered circumstances is not equivalent to a new trial and does not involve re-evaluating all the parties' arguments. The court must review the previously made decision only within the scope of the newly discovered circumstances.

The basis for such review is not deficiencies in the court's consideration of the case, but the fact that at the time of the decision, the court could not take into account a significant circumstance that could have substantially influenced the case outcome.

The Supreme Court stated that newly discovered circumstances are those that are significant for resolving the dispute, existed at the time of the case consideration, were not and could not have been known to the applicant, and their consideration could have influenced the court's conclusions.

Applying these criteria to the disputed legal relations, the Court concluded that the circumstance cited by the Pension Fund in Lviv region, namely the plaintiff's death, is not a newly discovered circumstance within the meaning of paragraph 1 of part two of Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code, since it is not subject to proof in this case concerning recovery of moral damages caused by health damage during the performance of labor duties due to an occupational disease, and does not affect the court's conclusions regarding the plaintiff's right to protect their violated right.

Moreover, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's conclusion that regardless of whether the appellate court was aware of the plaintiff's death, it was obliged to verify the first instance court's decision for legality and validity, which was done during the appellate review.

Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Pension Fund in Lviv region and confirmed the legality of substituting the deceased claimant with his heir.

Effectively, the Court formulated a legal position according to which moral damages awarded during a person's lifetime are part of the inheritance and can be received by the heir. At the same time, the plaintiff's death after the decision is made is not a newly discovered circumstance and does not provide grounds for reviewing such a decision.

Additionally, read in the article of the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" about whether it is possible to renounce inheritance in favor of a relative and what heirs need to know.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.