The article examines the creation of a threat of harm as an independent juridical fact within the system of non-contractual obligations. It argues that the classical model of civil liability, primarily oriented towards compensation for harm already caused, does not fully explain situations in which private law must respond to a dangerous condition before it develops into a completed private-law detriment. The article substantiates that a threat of harm should not be reduced to an early stage of tort liability, an abstract risk, or a subjective fear of a potential victim. Only a threat that is real, objectively ascertainable, sufficiently specific, normatively linked to the sphere of control of a particular person and capable of producing an individualised obligational effect may be considered legally relevant. The article proposes to treat the creation of a threat of harm as the primary juridical fact underlying the preventive-special group of non-contractual obligations. This approach makes it possible to distinguish preventive civil-law response from compensation, self-help, public-law safety measures, intervention in another’s affairs and contractual safety duties. It is concluded that a preventive non-contractual obligation is not liability for harm not yet caused. Its object is not compensation for future harm, but the removal or neutralisation of a dangerous condition. The article substantiates that the creation of a threat of harm has systemic significance for the development of the doctrine of non-contractual obligations, as it allows private law to move beyond a purely retrospective model of response towards a model capable of dealing with a real, specific and objectively ascertainable threat of harm. Such a model is especially important for riskoriented areas, including technical, environmental, information and digital relations, where waiting for harm to materialise may render subsequent compensation ineffective or incomplete.

Authored books

1. Benson P, Justice in Transactions: A Theory of Contract Law (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 2019).

2. Cooter R, Ulen T, Law and Economics (6th ed., Berkeley Law Books 2016).

3. Gordley J, Foundations of Private Law: Property, Tort, Contract, Unjust Enrichment (Oxford University Press 2006) https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199291670.001.0001.

4. Grundmann S, Micklitz H-W, Renner M, New Private Law Theory: A Pluralist Approach (Cambridge University Press 2021) https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108760089.

5. Herian R, Data: New Trajectories in Law (Routledge 2021).

6. Kortmann J, Altruism in Private Law: Liability for Nonfeasance and Negotiorum Gestio (Oxford University Press 2005) https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280056.001.0001.

7. Markesinis B, Unberath H, The German Law of Torts: A Comparative Treatise (4th ed., Hart Publishing 2002).

8. von Bar C, Principles of European Law. Benevolent Intervention in Another’s Affairs (PEL Ben. Int.) (Sellier 2006).

9. Karnaukh B, Prychynnyi zv’iazok u deliktnomu pravi (EKUS 2025) (in Ukrainian). Edited books

10. von Bar C (ed), Principles of European Law. Non-Contractual Liability Arising out of Damage Caused to Another (PEL Liab. Dam.) (Sellier 2009).

11. von Bar C, Clive E, Schulte-N|lke H (eds), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) (Full Edition, Sellier European Law Publishers 2009).

12. Spasybo-Fatieieva I (red), Traktat pro kompensatsiiu v pravi (EKUS 2026) (in Ukrainian).

13. Spasybo-Fatieieva I (red), Vchennia pro tsyvilno-pravovu vidpovidalnist (EKUS 2025) (in Ukrainian). 53 ПРАВО УКРАЇНИ • 2026 • № 3 • 39-53 СТВОРЕННЯ ЗАГРОЗИ ЯК САМОСТІЙНИЙ ЮРИДИЧНИЙ ФАКТ У СИСТЕМІ НЕДОГОВІРНИХ ЗОБОВ’ЯЗАНЬ