Summary

This article provides an overview of the practice of the criminal courts in applying the rules governing compensation for damage, and examines whether this differs from compensation of damage in civil cases. Whereas differences in compensation for damage in civil and criminal cases should not be precluded, the author believes that any differences must be rationally justified. The article incites discussion on whether and to what extent modification of the institution of compensation for damage is justified where damage is caused by a criminal offence.

The article is based on an analysis of judgments in the database of court decisions (kis.kohus.ee), compiled by the Supreme Court in September 2008. The vast majority of cases studied involved judgments made in cases tried pursuant to general procedure, since it is more difficult in cases tried in simplified proceedings to distinguish between substantive law issues and problems arising due to the particular form of procedure. This article focus more on substantive law issues, with less emphasis on procedural law.