1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The case concerns compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to a patient as a result of the unlawful application of assisted reproductive technologies (donation of gametes and embryos) by a medical institution without the proper consent of the spouses, which resulted in the lack of a biological relationship with the child and the subsequent dissolution of the marriage.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The Court confirmed that the medical institution arbitrarily changed the method of treatment, violating the requirements of Order No. 787, as it failed to obtain mandatory written consent from the patients for the donation of gametes and embryos.
* The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of fault on the part of the tortfeasor: it was the medical institution’s burden to prove that the treatment was conducted in a proper manner, which was not done.
* Regarding non-pecuniary damage, the Court deemed the amount (UAH 800,000) to be justified, taking into account the depth of the plaintiff’s mental suffering, as the actions of the medical staff placed her in a situation where she is not the biological mother of the child she is raising.
* The Court recognized as lawful the recovery from the medical institution of legal aid expenses incurred by the plaintiff in other court cases (regarding the exclusion of information about the father and alimony), as these expenses were a direct consequence of the unlawful actions of the medical staff.
* **Legal conclusion:** The Supreme Court departed from previous practice regarding the formal interpretation of the status of alimony, noting that although alimony is the property of the child, the person who actually maintains the child has the right to compensation for pecuniary damage if the loss of alimony payments occurred due to the unlawful actions of a third party (the medical institution).
* The Court emphasized that a patient cannot be expected to possess specialized medical knowledge; therefore, the burden of proof regarding the absence of violations during the treatment process lies with the medical institution.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decision regarding the recovery of non-pecuniary damage and legal aid expenses, but overturned the decision in the part concerning the refusal to compensate for pecuniary damage (lost alimony) and remanded the case to the court of appeal for a new trial for the recalculation of damages.
