Semen K. Stepanov

Obligations arising as a result of causing harm in the course of a counterterrorist operation remain poorly studied in the domestic doctrine to a certain extent. Meanwhile, in practice, more and more difficulties arise due to the lack of compensation for causing this kind of harm. The reason for this is the incorrect qualification of the relationship, as a result of which the interest of the victim often remains unsatisfied. The article attempts to identify and resolve problems in compensation for harm caused by a counter-terrorist operation. The main difficulties are connected, firstly, with the definition of the defendant, secondly, with the refusal of compensation, since the procedure established in the laws was not observed, thirdly, with the determination of the legal nature of compensation for causing such harm, and, finally, with compensation for non-pecuniary damage. As a result, the author comes to the following conclusions: (1) the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation acts as a defendant in such disputes, while compensation for harm should be made at the expense of the federal budget; (2) non-compliance with the formal procedure is not an unconditional obstacle to refusing to compensate for lawfully caused harm, since the legal nature of compensation provided for by law and direct compensation for harm are different; (3) the victim retains the right to claim compensation for harm caused by a counter-terrorist operation, despite the statu- tory compensation received; (4) the victim has the right to compensate for non-pecuniary damage.