The owner of a car that was stolen and then damaged by the thief in an accident is entitled to demand compensation in the amount of the cost of a new vehicle. The Constitutional Court of Russia came to this conclusion when considering a complaint from Roman Klimenko, a resident of Taganrog.
The story began when Klimenko's Mercedes S-Class ended up in the hands of a stranger. A young employee of the car wash, where the owner regularly brought the car and left the keys, took the car without the owner's permission. In fact, the employee decided to "take a ride" in someone else's car. At the same time, he did not have sufficient driving experience, and before the trip he also consumed alcohol. As a result, it all ended in a road traffic accident. The young man was brought to criminal responsibility for the theft and received a sentence.
When it came to assessing the damage caused to the car, experts determined its amount taking into account the depreciation of the car. According to their calculations, the damage was estimated at slightly more than 760 thousand rubles. The court took this amount as the basis for consideration of the case. This approach made it possible to classify the act as a crime that did not entail significant damage. Meanwhile, if the value of the car was determined without taking into account depreciation, the amount of damage would almost triple. Accordingly, the criminal-legal qualification of the thief's actions could be more severe.
The injured car owner considered this calculation procedure unfair. According to Roman Klimenko, the use of an assessment taking into account depreciation violates his right to full compensation for the damage caused. He recalled that the Constitutional Court had previously expressed its position on similar issues. In their decisions, the judges pointed out that the owner of a car injured in an accident cannot be obliged to look for parts and assemblies for repair with the same level of wear and tear that was established by the examination. Moreover, the use of such components cannot guarantee the safety of the vehicle. For this reason, the cost of repairs should be calculated without taking into account the natural wear and tear of the damaged car.
Experts note that judicial practice in such cases is ambiguous. Different courts often apply different approaches to determining the amount of damage.
After studying the circumstances of the case, the judges of the Constitutional Court formulated an important clarification. They emphasized that it is necessary to distinguish between two aspects: determining the damage for the criminal-legal qualification of the defendant's actions and calculating the losses that are subject to compensation to the victim. These procedures may differ.
In addition, the court pointed out that judicial practice allows the inclusion in a civil lawsuit of claims for compensation for property damage directly caused by the crime, even if such claims go beyond the scope of the charges. Examples include the costs of treatment if the crime caused harm to health, the costs of burial in the event of a person's death, as well as the costs of repairing property damaged, for example, during illegal entry into a dwelling.
All such claims must be documented. The plaintiff is obliged to provide the court with evidence of his expenses. In the case of a car, this means that Roman Klimenko has the right to repair the car, collect receipts and other supporting documents, and then present them to the perpetrator of the accident for compensation.
The Constitutional Court directly stated that even if a restrictive approach to calculating damage is applied in the criminal-legal assessment of a crime (for example, taking into account depreciation), this does not prevent the victim from demanding full compensation for losses. Compensation may include the costs of new parts, assemblies and units, determined at the time of the court decision. This can be done within the framework of civil law relations, including by filing a civil lawsuit directly in the criminal process.
At the same time, Roman Klimenko's case will not be reviewed. However, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the applicant's right to full compensation for the damage caused remains. It can be implemented taking into account those legal positions that were set out in the court decision.
