Prior to 01.09.2020, there was a well-established case law that, since neither the current legislation nor the contract provides for the client’s right to compensation for non-pecuniary damage due to late or non-return of money transferred to the bank, the bank’s client has no right for any compensation for non-pecuniary damage due to the delay of the bank.

The main argument of the courts to confirm their position was that due to the law, disputes over compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to a natural or legal person are considered only if the contract, Civil Code or other laws explicitly provide for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

However, starting from 01.09.2020 and after the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled in the case №216 / 3521/16-ц, the situation changed dramatically.

We propose to identify probable legal and compliance risks for banks that did not pay attention to significant changes in terms of protection of depositors’ rights in our presentation below.