The damage resulted after an ecological infringement is reimbursed according to the regulations of civil and ecological legislation. It is know that in legal practice there is a definite hierarchy of norms based on the priority of special norms over the general ones. Thus, consideration on reimbursement of the ecological damage is stipulated in the first line with the norms of legislation on safeguarding of natural environmental and the environment in general. Since these norms are laconic and reflect only specificity of the occurred relations, so all the rest, which is not stipulated by this legislation becomes a subject of the civil legislation and particularly by the chapters: “General statements on damage reimbursement” and “Reimbursement of damage to the life or health of a citizen”.

This means than a complainant should prove that there is a concrete material or moral damage inflicted to him and this damage is the cause of the defendant’s actions. The last matter in theory as well as in practice turns out to be most difficult to prove. The situation is sufficiently aggravated with the fact that inflicting of ecological damage to health is often dragged in time when the moment of inducing the damage is blurred in time, and cannot be definitely coordinated with the fact of the concrete infringement at a definite place. As an example of the foreign experience in this field can serve numerous trials dealt with the compensation of bodily harm due to asbestos exposure (USA, 80-s)

The specific of ecological damage is its mass character and the compensation of the damage is claimed by many people. In this situation the possibility of stating cause relation between all cases of health damage and the activity of the same object is discussed. But there is no answer in the legislation. If the defendant is not identified the case has no chances.

Therefore two groups of problems are considered in this connection:

1. quantitative estimation of ecological harm to the property or, which is the same, estimation of the volume of losses. There are no approbated methods, however in this connection the German experience might be reviewed with regard to the Law on ecological responsibility adopted in 1991;

2. difficulties in justifying the origin of such damage. Here is also the experience of foreign experience, in particular form Japan is of interest, e.g. “minamata” and “itai-itai” cases.

One of the rare cases in Russia encountered by the author was the verdict of the court in 1995 in Chelyabinsk region, when an industrial enterprise had to pay compensation to a woman, living in a in a contaminated territory and giving birth to a child with severe abnormalities.

The question concerns preservation of health of the population and its new generation. And the key role here should be taken by the state and its authorities, who should make the laws work. The legal problems of environmental protection are being actualized and their solving depends strongly from the responsibility of the society and state.