The key facts

  • Compensation for moral harm over tobacco smoke has risen from 5,000 to 10,000–15,000 rubles
  • The amount may increase if medical treatment expenses are documented
  • The lawyer advises not to rely only on Rospotrebnadzor laboratory measurements

Awards for tobacco smoke have grown larger

In Russia, citizens are increasingly demanding compensation for moral harm from neighbors over tobacco smoke seeping into their apartments. A lawyer spoke to the magazine aif.ru about the possible amounts of payouts — Alexander Khaminsky, head of the Center for Law and Order in Moscow and Moscow Region.

Compensation amounts and what increases them

Khaminsky stressed that an administrative fine and compensation for moral harm are two different things. If the victim seeks redress through the courts, the amounts usually remain small: previously they averaged about 5,000 rubles, but now they can reach 10,000–15,000 rubles. The payout may increase if the plaintiff documents expenses for medical treatment. According to the lawyer, if a resident has allergies or asthma and has visited paid medical facilities with complaints related to tobacco smoke in the apartment, such costs will be taken into account when calculating the total amount.

A caution when gathering evidence

The lawyer also warned that when gathering evidence one should not rely solely on laboratory measurements by Rospotrebnadzor: the concentration of harmful substances from a cigarette that drifted in through a window vent may turn out to be below the established thresholds, even though a non-smoker still experiences discomfort. In Khaminsky's view, organoleptic perceptions — a person's subjective sensations — still matter: they are hard to measure with instruments, yet they cause serious inconvenience. Earlier, the lawyer warned about fines for filming neighbors on video.

Why this matters

The rise in typical compensation from 5,000 to 10,000–15,000 rubles and the possibility of having paid medical treatment costs taken into account directly concern residents of apartment buildings suffering from neighbors' smoke: this sets realistic expectations for the amount of a claim and shows which evidence — medical documents and, in the lawyer's view, subjective sensations — can influence the outcome of a case. The practical takeaway from Khaminsky's remarks: a single Rospotrebnadzor measurement report may not be enough to win a case, so it makes sense to also gather documented medical treatment expenses.