On 05.03.2026, the General Assembly of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation (“SCC”) adopted Interpretative Decision No 1 / 2023, which examines the question whether, when awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damages, as a result of a work accident under Art. 200 of the Labour Code (“LC”), the court should deduct the compensation or pension already received by the injured person under the public social security system.

As a general rule, in the event of a work accident, the following basic compensation mechanism applies – the injured worker or employee receives payments from the state public social security (for example, compensation for temporary incapacity for work or a disability pension), and their amount is compared with the remuneration which he/she has received and would have received under the normal course of the employment relationship. The difference between the two amounts outlines the scope of the employer’s pecuniary liability, i.e. what compensation the employer owes on a monthly basis.

The disputed issue in practice is whether this mechanism also applies when compensation is awarded for non-pecuniary damages suffered by the worker or employee (pain and suffering), as a result of the work accident. In other words, whether the employer again has the right to “deduct” the compensation for temporary incapacity for work or disability pension paid by the National Social Security Institute, or must pay the awarded compensation in full.

According to one view, upheld in the case law, all damages suffered - pecuniary and non-pecuniary - should be aggregated, after which the compensations and/or pensions received by the employee from the public social security system are deducted from the total amount.

Another part of the case law considers that deduction should be carried out only when the same type of damages is being compensated, since the logic of the provision is that in this way the risk of the injured person receiving payment twice for the same thing (i.e. for one type of damages caused) is avoided, respectively preventing unjust enrichment.

The SCC accepts the second view as correct.

In its reasoning, the court develops the thesis that payments from the public social security system are in fact intended to compensate only pecuniary damages related to (i) loss of labour income or (ii) expenses incurred by the employee as a result of the injury. As a rule, the social security bodies do not compensate damages of a “non-pecuniary” nature, consisting in pain and suffering - these are determined by the court in equity.

For this reason, the compensation owed by the employer for non-pecuniary damages under Art. 200 LC has a different purpose and does not overlap with payments from the public social security system, respectively unjust enrichment is not present. Since deduction is admissible only where the amounts already paid compensate the same type of damages, in this case the employer will have to pay the full amount of the compensation for non-pecuniary damages owed by it, regardless of what compensation has been received by the injured person from the National Social Security Institute.

According to the SCC, any contrary understanding would lead to a result where the injured worker or employee would not actually receive full compensation for all damages suffered as a result of the accident.

The SCC also accepts that the different types of damages give rise to separate claims, which may be brought both in a single statement of claim through objective joinder of claims, as well as through separate claims. Each of these claims should be examined and assessed according to the rules applicable to the respective type of damage.

In view of this expanded scope of the employer’s liability, companies should carefully analyze their internal labour law documents, including internal rules for health and safety at work, with a view to minimizing the risks of work accidents.

This article has been prepared for and is part of the Legal Digest issued by Penkov, Markov & Partners. The publications therein do not constitute legal advice and are not binding. Penkov, Markov & Partners reserves all rights to this material, and any distribution thereof is subject to the prior written consent of the law firm.