Non-pecuniary Damage Research Articles

Redress for the non-pecuniary damage in case of exceedingly long non-execution of the final judgement

The article is focused on studying the topical issue of determining the possibility of redress for the non-pecuniary damage in case of exceedingly long non-execution of the final judgement. The author of the article has stated that the right to judicial protection includes both holding a judgement and its timely execution. Timely and full execution of a judgement guarantees the realization of subjective rights recognized by the judgement and fulfillment of legal obligations confirmed by it. It has been proved that execution of judgements within civil legal proceeding should be carried out taking into account the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights case-law. In particular, the ECtHR insists on the great importance of such a property of a judgement that has become final (res judicata), as the possibility and factual enforceability of its actual execution by the state. It has been noted in the paper that the adoption of a number of new legislative acts, which introduced a lot of amendments in the field of executive proceedings, foreground researches focused on levying of execution of judgements from a new angle, in particular, the topical issue on determining the possibility of redress for the non-pecuniary damage in case of exceedingly long non-execution of the final judgement. The requirements of reasonableness and fairness should be considered while determining the amount of compensation. Non-pecuniary damage is compensated regardless of the pecuniary damage that is subject to compensation and is not related to the amount of this compensation. Non- pecuniary damage is compensated on a once-only basis, unless otherwise stipulated by the contract or law. As a general rule, the infliction of the non- pecuniary damage to another person is the basis for the obligation to redress for the non- pecuniary damage. The obligation to redress for the non-pecuniary damage caused to a person by illegal decisions, action or act of omission of a state authority while exercising its powers arises under the following conditions: existence of non- pecuniary damage; wrongfulness of the person’s behavior who caused non-pecuniary damage; existence of causal relation between wrongfulness of the person’s behavior who caused non-pecuniary damage and its result - non-pecuniary damage. On the basis of the conducted research, the author has concluded that the possibility of redress for the non-pecuniary damage in case of exceedingly long non-execution of the final judgement supports the integrity of the legal system by ensuring the execution of judgements and maintaining trust. When judgements are executed with consequences, the authority of the judicial system is undermined and the effectiveness of the legal system is put at stake. The integrity of the legal system is preserved and public confidence in the judicial system is strengthened by upholding the authority of a judgement through the possibility of compensation. It is impossible to bear with non-execution, because it creates a dangerous precedent that undermines the foundation of an honest and fair legal system.

Contractual Liability and Compensation for Moral Harm

In Greece, the breach of contractual obligation is in principle disapproved by law, it crea­tes, however, only an obligation for the payment of compensation and not an additional obligation for the restoration of moral harm, because the sole non-performance of the contractual obligations cannot cause moral harm. Consequently, according to the Greek legislator, a possibility for the existence of a relevant pecuniary compensation does not exist. Pecuniary compensation for non-pecuniary damage is exceptio­nally recognized and only in cases defined by law (Art. 299 GCC). For example, it is recognized in the cases of infringement of the personality (Arts. 57, 59 GCC) and of tort, especially for the person who suffered an attack upon his health, honour, or chastity or who was deprived of his liberty (Art. 932 GCC). In case, however, the violation of the contractual obligation constitutes at the same time - and in­dependently from the existence of the contract - a tort, then it is settled case law in Greece that there is concurrence of contractual and delictual obligation. In that case, the provisions of tort (art. 914 ff. GCC) may apply, in which case, provided that moral harm is sustained, compensation for such moral harm may be sought. Deciding, however, whether the violation of the contractual obligation constitutes at the same time - and independently from the existence of the contract - a tort is not always easy. The tendency noted in the international texts aiming at the unification of law in Europe is the res­toration of moral harm also in cases of breach of a contract. For example, art. 9:501 of the Principles of European Contract Law, PECL and art. 7.4.2 of the Unidroit Principles provide for the possibility of the contracting party to request the restoration of non-pecuniary damage in cases of unjustifiable breach of a contract. Thus, the override of the prohibition set in art. 299 GCC attempted by the Greek doctrine and jurisprudence through the provisions about personality protection and the application of art. 932 GCC, where there is concurrence of contractual and delictual liability, is justified and confirms that art. 299 GCC was rightly criticized almost unanimously by the Greek doctrine already since its introduction as against the tradition of Greek Law and due to the non-lenient situations it causes.

Fair Satisfaction due to Violations of Patients' Rights in Healthcare

This article explores and presents the meaning of the award of just satisfaction for breaches of patients' rights that interfere with fundamental human rights and the personal integrity of the individual in the field of healthcare. The research is based on well-established methods of legal science, using historical, normative-dogmatic, comparative, axiological and sociological methods. This article reveals and presents a view on the normative regulation of the field of scientific study and points out the shortcomings of the regulation of the judicial protection of rights in health care in the Republic of Slovenia. The study concludes that the interference with a patient's right protected by law results in an interference with the patient's private life, which is why the court should mitigate the ongoing violation and its consequences without undue delay. The patient should be able to seek judicial protection of his or her rights in the healthcare system within the national system through the establishment of an institute of just satisfaction under Article 41 The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The instrument of just satisfaction, as provided for by the ECHR and developed by The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), should be used as an important remedy in cases of violation of a patient's rights where no other immediate judicial remedy is available. It remains open to debate for which violations of patients' rights just satisfaction should be granted and in what procedure in order to ensure its swift effect. Keywords: Just satisfaction; non-pecuniary damage; criteria for non-business liability; exceptional circumstances; mitigation of the harmful consequences

Implementation of the burden of proof in criminal proceedings by the victim and their representative

The article analyses the provisions of criminal procedure legislation with a view to defining the role of the victim and their representative (attorney-at-law) in proving the circumstances specified in Article 91 and Part 2 of Article 92 of the CPC of Ukraine. It is argued that the legislator, when defining the information which constitutes the victim's burden of proof, used the wording which does not give an unambiguous understanding of the totality of the circumstances which the victim and his/her legal representative are obliged to prove. Based on the results of the textual analysis of the provisions of current legislation, and on the basis of the generalisation of court practice, it is proposed that the circumstances which should be proved by the victim (his/her representative) include the following: the amount of procedural costs incurred by the victim; circumstances characterising the personality of the accused, as indicated by the injured party; arguments and evidence confirming the circumstances set out in the petitions and complaints filed by the injured party; circumstances related to non-pecuniary damage caused to the victim; circumstances underlying the claims set out in a civil action. It is established that a representative engaged by the victim plays a significant role in collecting evidence which forms the basis of the claims set out in a civil action. This includes, in particular, requesting copies of documents certifying the costs incurred by the victim and obtaining an expert opinion based on the results of a psychological examination. It is determined that in order to clarify such circumstances, the victim’s representative may resort to a number of measures, including: 1) submission of lawyer’s requests; 2) conducting surveys of citizens; 3) obtaining an expert opinion on a contractual basis; 4) obtaining temporary access to things and documents on the basis of a decision of the investigating judge; 5) initiating procedural actions in the form of investigative (search) and covert investigative (search) actions, etc.

Case law of the European court of human rights on compensation for non-pecuniary damage: Certain issues

Compensation is considered a means of restoring the violated rights. Ukrainian legislation directly provides for the possibility of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, however, a number of problems arise when considering cases on this issue in national courts. Firstly, there is no legally enshrined definition of this concept in Ukraine. Secondly, there is no single methodology or model for assessing moral damage, no formula for calculation is established at the legislative level, due to which judges assign different amounts of compensation for harm caused under the same or similar circumstances. Besides, there are no clear criteria for determining the amount of damage caused, which makes it almost impossible to unambiguously calculate, for example, the extent of the mental pain or the infringement on dignity and honor in property equivalent, that is, it is in fact a conditional compensation. Reference to the case law of the ECHR on this matter may contribute to solving these problems, because its decisions are referred to by national courts. The ECHR has not developed a universal formula for calculating the amount of non-pecuniary damage, but there are certain criteria for its assessment: the nature of the offense and violated right; payments accrued based on the results of consideration of previous cases; victim’s personality; the respondent State; collective statements or mass offenses; other circumstances of the case.

Compensation for non-pecuniary damage in labor law is an important guarantee of the protection of workers’ rights

The article is devoted to the study of the institution of compensation for moral damage in the field of labor, i.e. in cases where the employee’s labor rights are violated by the employer, and as a result, moral damage is caused, which is subject to compensation. Since the issue of compensation for moral damage in labor law remains debatable to this day, as there is no unambiguous scientific or legislative solution to it. Although the institution of compensation for moral damage in the field of labor is an important guarantee of the protection of workers’ rights. During the research, the current domestic legislation and the views of scientists on the raised issue were analyzed. In particular, it is stated that compensation for non-pecuniary damage in labor law has its own characteristics compared to compensation for non- pecuniary damage in civil law. Thus, the specifics of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the field of labor lies in the subject structure of this legal relationship - the employee and the employer, where the employer has the obligation to compensate non-pecuniary damage, and the employee has the right to receive it in the presence of negative consequences of the violation of labor rights. Attention has been drawn to the fact that compensation for moral damage in labor law is proposed to be considered in three aspects: as compensation for moral damage caused to the employee; as an independent, special and universal type of employer’s responsibility; and as a way of protecting the rights of the employee in labor relations. It was concluded that the labor legislation regarding the legal regulation of issues of compensation for moral damage to the employee needs improvement, since it lacks a definition not only of compensation of moral damage in labor law, but also of moral damage in labor law, which , in turn, leads to the fact that the inflicted moral damage is not actually perceived as damage, it is simply ignored. At the same time, although the introduction of the institution of compensation for moral damages in labor law did not solve all the problems regarding the protection of human labor rights, it is evidenced by the fact that the constitutional provisions on the recognition of a person as the highest social value and the guarantee of his physical and moral safety by every state are gradually being implemented in the labor legislation.

Reimbursement or compensation for damages caused by war: the civil law aspect

The article is devoted to the study of the correlation between the concepts of reimbursement and compensation for damages, including during the war. The author highlights the issue of distinguishing between the concepts of reimbursement and compensation as synonymous categories. It is determined that the term “compensation” is broader in scope and includes the narrower term “reimbursement”, as well as additional features – remuneration or payments. It is proposed to change the use of the established phrase “reimbursement of moral damage” to “compensation for moral damage” due to the impossibility of accurate determination of the amount of reimbursement due to the non-property component and the need to compensate a person for a certain amount of compensation for suffering, especially in wartime. It is established that the categories of “damage” and “losses” are not identical. The characteristic features of both concepts are analysed. Losses are defined as material losses which should be determined in monetary terms. Damage is a broader concept and is considered to be the negative consequences of unlawful behaviour towards a certain entity in connection with the violation of its rights. Damage can be tangible or intangible, which is not inherent in losses. It is proved that damage and losses are interrelated, i.e. damage may include losses, but only in respect of property damage. It is emphasised that losses are defined as losses due to damage or destruction of property or losses which a person could have suffered. It is determined that the definition of “non-pecuniary damage” contains a reference to the fact that it is also disclosed as losses of a non-property nature. The article analyses and notes that losses are deprivation of a person of a certain benefit. Non-pecuniary damage is inflicted on a person in non-property terms and cannot be considered losses. The particularities of reimbursement of damage caused by war are considered. The article establishes the absence of a single mechanism for reimbursement of damages caused by violation of their rights as a result of armed aggression. The need and possibility of reimbursement, in addition to property damage, of moral damage caused by war is revealed. It is emphasised that today the State, either independently or with the involvement of international partners, provides compensation to victims of war.

Justice on the High Seas: Nonpecuniary Damages and the Death on the High Seas Act

Justice on the High Seas: Nonpecuniary Damages and the Death on the High Seas Act

EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE BASE IN CASES OF COMPENSATION FOR MORAL DAMAGE

The article deals with the problems associated with determining the amount of payment of moral damages, its solution, analysis of the opinions expressed by legal scholars, and the legislative experience of foreign countries. The article also analyzes the criteria for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

Provision of Dental Care: Certain Aspects of Court Practice Significant for Medical Law

Background: In Ukraine, a notable trend is emerging wherein judicial practice plays an increasingly significant role in regulating medical-legal relations. Recently, our attention has been drawn to a court case on compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from improper medical services provided to a patient in a private dental clinic in Ivano-Frankivsk City. After considering this case, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the judicial system of Ukraine, made a decision that, in our opinion, is a landmark in medical law - a complex branch of law that includes a set of legal norms regulating public relations in the field of medical activity. The purpose of this study is to analyse the court proceedings in a civil case of an action involving a dispute related to the application of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Protection of Consumer Rights’ on compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in the context of the possibility of its further consideration as a landmark case in medical law and as a judicial precedent which provides for the role of an additional regulator of medical-legal relations and the role of a source of medical law. Methods: In the study, a combination of general scientific and special scientific approaches was used, along with analytical, synthetic, complex and generalisation methods. Results and Conclusions: The results of the study indicate that court practice has the potential to demonstrate flexibility, efficiency, connection with everyday life and rapid adaptation to difficult social circumstances, in particular those related to patient access to quality healthcare. The Supreme Court, based on the circumstances of a particular case, the nature of the disputed legal relationship and the content of the claims, may provide not only a model interpretation of a regulatory prescription that is mandatory for lower courts to take into account when resolving similar cases but also has every reason to serve as a guide for healthcare professionals in the course of their professional activities.

SCIENTIFIC VIEWS OF S. M. KORNEYEV ON THE PROBLEM OF COMPENSATION FOR MORAL HARM IN THE LIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CIVIL DOCTRINE AND CIVIL LEGISLATION

The article discusses the evolution of views on the problem of compensation for moral harm in Russian and foreign Civil doctrine. The author analyzes the features of the position on the issue of compensation for moral harm, expressed by Professor S. M. Korneev, as well as the approaches of modern law enforcement practice in cases of compensation for moral harm. The article shows the origin of the problem of compensation for moral harm in Roman law on the example of the so-called claims for insult. The possibility of compensation for moral harm in the Middle Ages was practically denied, largely due to the prevailing doctrine of restitution. Subsequently, the legislation on compensation for non-pecuniary damage was most developed in England. Ample opportunities to compensate for non-property damage to the victim began to be provided in France and Italy. In more conservative countries - Germany and Austria, as a result, they also recognized the legality of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In Russia, it was initially possible to observe the beginnings of this institution, in the USSR they were gone. Compensation for moral harm became possible only during the period of “perestroika”. The current Russian legislation not only recognizes compensation for non-property damage, but also provides for a wide frameworks for its application.

Zasada neminem laedere a ochrona dóbr osobistych osoby fizycznej

Polish and foreign case-law as well as legal doctrine sometimes present the opinion that in the law of torts a universally binding duty exists not to cause harm to others (the neminem laedere principle). Its breach is supposed to determine the wrongfulness of the tortfeasor's behaviour. The purpose of the article is to analyse whether this principle may be applicable to the protection of personality rights. Due to different ways of understanding in jurisprudence what this principle consists of, the potential application of two concepts was considered. Firstly, if in the legal system there is a general norm of behaviour prohibiting the infringement of another individual's personality rights. Secondly, if there is a general norm of behaviour not to cause others non-pecuniary damage (including immaterial harm - pain and suffering). The neminem laedere principle is not a general principle of Polish law and is also not applicable to the protection of personality rights. This principle can be regarded only as a moral imperative and a postulate for the harmonious coexistence of individuals in society rather than a legal duty.

Conditions for compensation for moral damage caused to the employee

As cases of violation of employees’ rights are becoming more and more frequent today, the issue of bringing the employer or its authorised body to justice is becoming increasingly relevant. One of the most effective ways to counteract this phenomenon is to compensate for moral damages. That is why the purpose of the article is to determine the conditions and grounds for bringing an employer to liability in the form of compensation for damage to an employee, since this issue is the most pressing one. The following scientific methods were used in the course of the study: monographic, formal and logical, legal and dogmatic, systemic and structural, and the method of summarization.
 It is established that compensation for non-pecuniary damage to an employee is possible subject to certain statutory conditions which are common to liability in all cases of non-pecuniary damage. Each of these conditions is examined in detail, namely: the fact of causing (presence of) non-pecuniary damage; unlawfulness of the employer’s actions; existence of a causal link between the employer’s unlawful act and the non-pecuniary damage caused to the employee; and the employer's guilt. The author proves that non-pecuniary damage occurs if the following grounds exist: the person and the perpetrator of the damage are in an employment relationship; it arose as a result of a violation of labour rights by the employer; the employee suffers moral losses in the form of emotional distress, and these negative changes have led to the loss of normal life ties and require additional efforts from the employee to organise his or her life.
 It is proved that the most appropriate theory for resolving the issue of the presence or absence of causation in the legal relations under consideration is the theory of direct and indirect causation.
 It is argued that since moral suffering always “accompanies” a violation of an employee’s legal labour rights, the presumption of moral damages should be enshrined in law. Based on the study of relevant sources and regulations, the author provides her own definition of the concept of “employer’s guilt”.

On Compensation for Moral Damage in Cases of Protection of Honor, Dignity and Business Reputation: Theoretical and Law Enforcement Aspects

Relevance. The article examines the problem of compensation for moral damage as one of the ways to protect honor, dignity and business reputation in accordance with Art. 151 «Compensation for moral damage» of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Doctrinal approaches to the concept of moral damage and other categories of this institute have been studied, an assessment of the trends in law enforcement practice for resolving such disputes is given. The work reflected new explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in cases of recovery of compensation for moral damage, as well as the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which recognized Article 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as unconstitutional in part.The purpose of the study is to deepen scientific knowledge of moral harm as a way to protect honor, dignity and business reputation and to develop theoretical and legislative proposals aimed at the uniform application of compensation for moral damage in such cases.Objectives: to analyze reviews of judicial practice, decisions on claims for recovery of moral damage, legal positions of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts of the Russian Federation and to identify gaps in the methods of protection of these intangible benefits of a citizen.The methodology was compiled by general scientific (deductions, induction, analysis and synthesis) and private scientific methods (formal-legal, logical, analysis of judicial practice, system-analytical) in their various combination.The results contain original proposals of a theoretical, applied and legislative nature, contributing to the effectiveness of the institution of moral damage as a way of compensation for unlawful actions against the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen.Conclusion. The author's position is formulated on the inexpediency of the principle of "presumption of moral damage" and the need to modernize the version of Art. Art. 151 and 1099 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in terms of excluding restrictions on the collection of moral damage caused to a person in relation to property damage. It is stated that there is judicial discretion in determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the limitation of which is possible taking into account the criteria outlined in the new resolution № 33.

The Immanent Tensions of ‘Compensation’ of Loss of Life – A Multidimensional Model and Some Global Thoughts Based on the Recent Legislative Reform in Hungary

Abstract Immanent tensions of tort law vibrate apparently with greater amplitude regarding the so-called ‘loss of life’ claims of secondary victims (family members) for non-pecuniary damages. The loss of a loved one cannot be expressed in terms of money, yet tort law attempts to do so. Deterrence and punishment are basically alien to civil liability (at least in the civil law tradition), but there is an element of punishment involved. It is impossible to serve two masters; nevertheless, both predictability of law and individual justice are sought at the same time. There is a constant fear of unfounded claims, yet there is also a tendency to release the surviving family member(s) from the burden of proving feelings that are difficult to quantify (if possible at all). In this paper, a multi-dimensional model is created for a better understanding, based on those tensions and the possible combinations of solutions provided by the legal systems to them. While some contrasts are highlighted (eg first, having legislative acts according to which particular relatives are entitled to compensation and in what particular amount; or on the contrary, leaving matters to the discretion of the trial judge; and second, whether the degree of relation matters and/or emotional proximity is crucial), reference is also made to the still unanswered basic questions, such as what actually is the loss to be compensated: the grief and sorrow felt in itself, the aggravation of the claimant’s own life (among others, loss of guidance, care and companionship), the loss to the integrity of the family as a value, or finding the energy to deal with the loss and therefore not investing in other constructive purposes or life goals? The analysis of the author’s own legal system, ie of the Hungarian approach, recently rich in variety, and some additional comparative remarks provide the first test of the model and allow some general conclusions.

Gender gap and personal injury compensation

Damages for personal injuries is a field prone to gender biases. Empirical exploration of the issue, however, is far from being simple, especially in Civil Law countries, given a pervasive lack of transparency and explicitness on the details of reasoning and treatment of numerical values. Accounting for that feature, our research sketches a canon of analysis that goes beyond the words. To deal with risks of cherry picking and inaccurate sample design, our database encompasses all the decisions made during the span time selected (more than 20,000) by an Appellate Court. Scrapers designed ad hoc have been instrumental to that aim. In our case study, the well-known earnings gap, usually assumed a cause of other, second order gaps, ought not to be mirrored in magnitude by pecuniary damages, because the “shadow price” of non-remunerated activities must be computed together with earnings lost, what should counterbalance the latter derivative gap. Nonpecuniary damages, in turn, must be independent of earnings, being theoretically free from that effect. Nonetheless, we found differences with statistical significance in any of them, in favor of men. Some reverse engineering in search of the primary source of the gap leads to find a systematic bias in percentages of disability against women, even in cases where the predictable result should be the opposite. In more general terms, the said obscurity on the treatment of numerical values, usually covered by rhetoric, renders difficult any honest scrutiny of systematic biases on the matter without the assistance of high technology and some sophistication, and shields decisions to criticism. Accordingly, it helps perpetuate gaps whenever existed.

Nematerijalna šteta kao izraz zaštite društvenih vrednosti

The paper examines the development of non-pecuniary damage and the accepted concepts of non-pecuniary damage, in light of protection of social values. While the protection of material goods entails the obligation to compensate the injured party for material (pecuniary) damage, the protection of immaterial (intangible) goods has always given rise to opposed views. In the earlier stages of the development of law, the principle of talion (lex talionis) provided for observance of one's physical integrity; however, its application did not ensure the compensation of the injured party (except for the feeling of satisfaction embodied in revenge) but the punishment of the tortfeasor. On the other hand, the psychological (emotional) harm inflicted on a human being was not a protected legal interest due to the common belief that non-pecuniary damages could not compensate for this injury. The development of legal thought provided a firm foothold for the protection of intangible interests. The next step involved determining the scope of the concept of non-pecuniary damage. In the collision of subjective and objective conceptions on non-pecuniary damage, legislators opted for one of the approaches, or a mixed concept. Ultimately, the acceptance of a specific conceptual framework sets the course in the protection of social values that the legal system seeks to uphold by instituting non-pecuniary damage. The Serbian Civil Obligations Act defines non-pecuniary damage as inflicted physical pain, psychological pain or fear (subjective conception), arising from quantifiable injuries to one's intangible interests (harm caused to one's body, honor or reputation, loss of a loved one, etc.) (Articles 155 and 200). Article 199 of this Act also recognizes harm to personality rights (objective conception). The observed shortcomings inspired the Croatian and Montenegrin legislators to amend their civil obligations acts by introducing personality rights in the conceptual framework of non-pecuniary damage, which is in compliance with the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL). Although both the subjective and the objective conception essentially seek to embrace the same intangible interests, different approaches consequently lead to different scopes of protection. The Draft Civil Code of the Republic of Serbia contains a proposal for instituting a mixed concept, whereby non-pecuniary damage is defined as an infliction of physical harm or psychological pain, and a violation of personality rights. The principle of legal certainty calls for a cautious approach in proposing and implementing changes in domestic tort law.

The impact of evaluation concepts on determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage

The impact of evaluation concepts on determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage

Compensation for violation of an exclusive right and compensation for non-pecuniary damage: similarities and differences

Compensation for violation of an exclusive right and compensation for non-pecuniary damage: similarities and differences

Informed Consent and Public Health

Informed consent, which is primarily aimed at encouraging individual patients and subjects of scientific research to make autonomous decisions, and public health measures, such as compulsory vaccination against infectious diseases, the successfulness of which implies harmonized administration of vaccines to a broad population, seem to be irreconcilable opposites at first glance. This paper deals with investigating whether these opposites can reconcile or whether informed consent can be applied in the field of public health. The first part of the paper provides a short overview of the main features of informed consent and its relevance in treating individual patients. The second part of the paper tackles the issue of immunization. If not provided with consent of their patients or having a legal obligation, physicians are believed to interfere with the bodily integrity of other people when conducting vaccination and their act can be deemed as an assault and entail non-pecuniary damage compensation. Herd immunity as a “public good” can only be achieved if all people are equally subject to public health measures. At this point, the key question is if informed consent and appertaining freedom of decision-making represent a threat to the accomplishment of this public health goal. This question should truly be answered since vaccination may, though rarely, bring to medical complications, which may then lead to high treatment costs, loss of income and extremely rare, to death. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that disclosure of the risks and benefits of immunization within the framework of public health programmes could contribute to putting the fundamental bioethical postulates into practice: establishing and fostering mutual trust between physicians and their patients, which can, in the end, contribute to a higher immunization rate of a population.