Their two underage sons violated it and posted a video clip of the incident

Abu Dhabi Cassation obliges parents to pay 300,000 dirhams in compensation for a child

The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi upheld a ruling by the Court of Appeal, requiring parents of minors to pay a third father 300,000 dirhams, material and moral compensation, after the two boys were issued a criminal judgment condemning them for indecent assault on the father’s third son’s offer of coercion and assaulting his privacy by publishing and re-publishing a video clip of his indecent assault.

The guardian of the child (the victim) had filed a civil lawsuit in his capacity as guardian for his minor son, in which he demanded that the parents of minors pay him 600,000 dirhams and his legal interest at 9% from the date of the judgment, until the payment is completed, indicating that the two minors, the two defendant's sons, violated the offer of his son And they were convicted for that incident by a criminal ruling that became final, and he demanded compensation for the material and moral damages caused to him and his son.

The court of the first instance ruled that the parents were obligated to pay him compensation of 300 thousand dirhams, so the two parties appealed the ruling, and after the court included the two appeals, it decided to uphold the appealed judgment, so the sentenced parents appealed the ruling, and confirmed that it violated the right of defense, and that they insisted on the absence of error on the part of minors Because the victim was satisfied with the incident, and because they were unmarked minors, unaware of what they had committed, and because the publication of the video of the incident did not transgress them to others, and they argued that the respondent had not suffered any damages, and that he did not prove material harm as the causal link is negated as one of the pillars of responsibility, and they also insisted that the incident Not more than being a little boy's banter, and that the verdict obliged them to pay an exaggerated compensation.

For its part, the Court of Cassation confirmed in the merits of its ruling that the judgment issued in the criminal case has its authority in the civil lawsuit before the civil courts, whenever it has made a necessary separation in the occurrence of the joint action between the two lawsuits, and that if the criminal court has decided on the matters of the case, it is refrained from the courts. Civil rights must re-examine them, and they must abide when discussing the civil rights related to them, so that its ruling does not contradict the authority of the penal ruling.

She indicated that the law allows the ruling to compel a person other than the minor to pay compensation to the injured person for the harmful act that has been proven to have occurred by the minor, as long as he is obligated to take care of this minor, either by virtue of the law directly as the father or the self-appointed guardian in charge of his upbringing and care, or by virtue of an agreement binding him to do so.

And she confirmed that what is proven in the criminal judgment is that it had decided to condemn the children of the appellants for having committed an indecent assault on the plaintiff’s son’s honor by publishing and re-publishing a video clip of the incident. Control over their children, and the law has been properly applied.

It indicated that the plaintiff father suffered material damages from effort and expenses as a result of his prosecution of the perpetrators of the incident in defense of his son's rights, in addition to the moral damage to his son in the form of psychological harm as a result of the violation of his display, filming and the publication of the video clip, and the court ruled to reject the parents' appeal and required them to pay fees and expenses with confiscation Insurance.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news