SC GC defines conditions of compensation for damage caused by drawing up a report on administrative offence by patrol police officer in the event of further closure of case due to absence of offence

The actions of a patrol police officer in drawing up a report on an administrative offence in the event of subsequent closure of the case due to the absence of an administrative offence may be grounds for compensation by the state only if the closure of the case occurred due to the obvious non-compliance of the protocol with the requirements of the law or as a result of other illegal actions of patrol police officers during the preparation of materials on an administrative offence or actions that have signs of arbitrariness.

This conclusion was reached by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.

Following the road traffic accident, a patrol police officer drew up an administrative offence report against the plaintiff, and the case was sent to court. However, the court dismissed the case due to the absence of an event and elements of an administrative offence in the plaintiff's actions, which, in the plaintiff's opinion, confirmed the unlawfulness of the actions of the patrol police officer who drew up the report. As a result of the police officer's actions, the plaintiff suffered non-pecuniary damage, which he sought compensation for.

When resolving the dispute in this case, the courts of previous instances proceeded from the premise that the closure of proceedings on an administrative offence in the absence of an event and elements of such a violation confirms the illegality of the relevant administrative offence report drawn up by patrol police officers, which presumes that the plaintiff suffered non-pecuniary damage.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court disagreed with such conclusions, as well as with the conclusions on the application of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Procedure for Compensation for Damage Caused to a Citizen by Unlawful Actions of Bodies Conducting Operational and Investigative Activities, Pre-trial Investigation Bodies, Prosecutor's Office and Court’ to the disputed legal relations, since the patrol police is not a body conducting operational and investigative activities or pre-trial investigation.

In disputed legal relations, damages are compensated on the general grounds set out in Article 1174 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, and therefore a prerequisite for imposing liability on the state for the actions (inaction) of the defendant's officials in the form of compensation for damages is the establishment of unlawfulness in the actions of patrol police officers when drawing up a report on an administrative offence.

If during the consideration of an administrative offence case the non-compliance of actions (inaction) of patrol police officers with the requirements of drawing up a protocol is not established, such actions of the patrol police officer may be grounds for compensation by the state only if the case was closed due to the obvious non-compliance of the protocol with the requirements of the law or due to other illegal actions of patrol police officers in the course of drawing up materials on an administrative offence or actions that have signs of arbitrariness.

In this case, the closure of the case due to the absence of an administrative offence was not due to the protocol's non-compliance with the law or other illegal actions of patrol police officers in the course of processing materials on an administrative offence, so the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff did not have the right to compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and therefore there were no grounds to satisfy the claim.

Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 22 January 2025 in case No. 335/6977/22 (proceedings No. 14-87цс24) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/125162574.

This and other legal opinions of the Supreme Court are available in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.