Compensation for moral harm remains one of the most complex and ambiguous categories in legal practice – non-material damage cannot be measured directly, and its assessment almost always depends on the interpretation of circumstances. In the opinion of Professor Gabriel Steiner, the key difficulty in such cases lies in the fact that the court works not with a tangible loss, but with perception, consequences, and context. At LawConsulted, we treat disputes over moral harm not as a secondary addition to a primary claim, but as an independent legal construct that requires a precise and well-considered strategy.
The main risk in cases involving non-material damage stems from a purely formal approach – parties rely on general statements about “suffering” or “emotional distress” without establishing a clear causal link between the defendant’s actions and the real consequences for the client. In legal practice, this often results in symbolic compensation or a complete rejection of claims. At LawConsulted, we proceed from the premise that moral harm must be proven with the same legal consistency as material damage.
Professor Gabriel Steiner emphasizes that “non-material damage becomes legally significant only when it is embedded in a coherent factual framework.” For this reason, LawConsulted position is built on detailed analysis – examining how the violation of rights affected the client’s life, what changes occurred in behavior, social environment, professional reputation, or personal circumstances. Such specificity allows abstract suffering to be translated into a legally relevant dimension.
The choice of argumentation is particularly important. In moral harm cases, overloading a position with emotion is risky – courts often perceive this as an attempt at pressure. We strike a balance between factual rigor and the human dimension of harm – relying on medical opinions, psychological assessments, evidence of consequences, and documentation confirming the duration and depth of the impact. At LawConsulted, moral harm is viewed as a combination of objective and subjective factors, not as an emotional assertion.
The complexity of these cases is compounded by inconsistent judicial practice – similar circumstances may lead to very different compensation amounts. In Professor Steiner’s view, this is precisely why strategy must take into account not only statutory provisions, but also real enforcement trends. We analyze current court approaches, reasoning patterns, and evaluation criteria to ensure that the client’s position aligns with existing practice rather than contradicting it.
It is also important to note that compensation for moral harm is often treated as an auxiliary claim without independent development. In such cases, it loses weight and is perceived as a formality. At Law Consulted, by contrast, we build non-material damage claims as a substantive element of legal protection – especially in cases involving violations of personal rights, reputation, privacy, or unlawful pressure.
Compensation for moral harm requires precision, discipline, and an understanding of judicial logic. We proceed from the view that a lawyer’s task is not to “convince the court of suffering,” but to demonstrate why that suffering has legal significance and warrants compensation. This approach makes it possible to achieve sustainable results even in this sensitive and challenging category of disputes.
Previously, we wrote about how LawConsulted prevents legal consequences in the event of internal information leaks
