The High Court has referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union about whether Ireland’s criminal injuries compensation scheme must provide some compensation for pain and suffering.
The reference, made by Ms Justice Emily Egan on 22 March 2024, arises from a claim by Alejandro Blanco, a qualified software engineer born in Spain. He was seriously assaulted on a street outside his home in Ireland on 12 July 2015. The judgment says three people, including two juveniles, were prosecuted and convicted of offences arising from the attack. Mr Blanco has been unable to identify the juvenile assailants.
The court’s account says he suffered a permanent eye injury, partial loss of vision and double vision, as well as a fractured jaw and other injuries. His application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal also described continuing pain, anxiety and impaired mobility in his left arm.
The Tribunal awarded him €645.65 in 2019, matching the expenses he had claimed. The award covered replacement spectacles and driving licence, medicine, hospital and travel costs. Under the version of the Scheme applying to his claim, compensation for pain and suffering was excluded for injuries sustained after 1 April 1986.
Mr Blanco’s High Court proceedings challenge that exclusion under the EU Compensation Directive, which requires national schemes to provide “fair and appropriate compensation” to victims of violent intentional crime. The High Court has not ruled on whether the Irish Scheme is compatible with the Directive or whether Mr Blanco is entitled to damages. It has sought the EU court’s interpretation to help decide those issues.
The questions include whether the Directive requires compensation for both material and non-material loss; whether pain and suffering is non-material loss; and how scheme compensation should relate to damages a victim might obtain from an assailant in a civil claim. The High Court also asks whether an award of €645.65 could be fair and appropriate compensation for a serious eye injury causing permanent sight impairment.
The referring court expressed a provisional view that the EU court’s earlier guidance strongly suggests non-material loss cannot be excluded altogether and that compensation should include some contribution for pain and suffering. That is the High Court’s view accompanying the reference, not a final determination of the claim. The judgment records that about 17 similar cases were pending in the High Court and could benefit from the EU court’s guidance.