Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation. How is honor, dignity and business reputation protected? Honor, dignity or business reputation

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation made an important clarification, equally useful to ordinary citizens, commercial structures, officials and the media. The court examined the practice of domestic courts considering disputes regarding the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation over the past five years.

It is no secret that lawsuits for the protection of honor and dignity always attract increased public attention. And they are not always perceived unambiguously. According to the Supreme Court, per year our courts of general jurisdiction consider approximately 5 thousand such disputes, and arbitration courts - approximately 800 cases that resolve issues of business reputation.

There is an opinion that claims for the protection of honor mainly concern the media and journalists whose publications offend and offend someone. So, judicial statistics do not confirm this statement. According to her data, journalists and their publications are called defendants in claims for the protection of dignity four times less often than ordinary citizens or legal entities.

This Supreme Court analysis is also important because some laws have changed over the past few years. As a result, the scope of protecting the good name of those who were offended has become wider.

From the new norms, it became possible, for example, to recognize in court the fact of violation of personal non-property rights. Now the court can demand the full publication of the court decision that protects the offended person. And now you can protect a person’s name even after his death. If information discrediting a citizen has become widely known, now it is realistic to demand in court that the information be removed from wherever possible. For example, completely destroy the circulation without any compensation.

The media are not responsible for information if it is a verbatim quote from another media outlet

In its review, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation named the main conditions for winning the case for the protection of honor and dignity. According to him, there must be a combination of three conditions: the information must be clearly defamatory, it must be disseminated and not correspond to reality. But then the roles in the trial are distributed as follows - the one who complains about information that offends him must prove himself that there was a fact of dissemination, and that this information is defamatory. The defendant must prove that the information he disseminated is true.

What is the most important thing, according to the Supreme Court, that must be taken into account when considering claims for the protection of honor and dignity?

The court emphasized under what conditions applicants should be denied access to the court. This is a failure to comply with those very three conditions - defamatory information, its dissemination and the discrepancy between the facts and reality. And if at least one of these three conditions is missing, then you should not count on winning in court.

As an example, the Supreme Court cited a lawsuit between two citizens against each other. One said through the newspaper that a colleague had plagiarized his dissertation, and the other was offended by this and went to court. The first court considered the claim and even made its decision, but the Supreme Court explained that the court did not resolve the question: was there really plagiarism in the dissertation? Maybe your colleague is right? To answer this question, the court had to order an examination of the dissertation.

In fact, the Supreme Court spoke out repeatedly in this review on the issue of appointing an expert examination. First of all, to understand whether the information that was disseminated really discredits the good name of a person or does it just seem to the plaintiff? Whatever it may seem, the Supreme Court emphasized, to resolve such issues it is necessary to invite specialists for consultation.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation makes a strict distinction between whether the information was disseminated as a statement or as simply the opinion of the one who wrote? Or maybe it was the author’s conviction?

The Supreme Court agreed - the most difficult thing in such claims is to find the line between a statement of fact and the subjective opinion of the author, to which he is entitled.

While defending the right to freedom of expression, the Supreme Court emphasizes that one must be especially careful in assessing disputes when the parties to the conflict are political opponents.

Here is another interesting passage that is important for those who may go to court with a similar claim. According to the Supreme Court, a person is exempt from liability if he proves that his information is generally true. At the same time, the plaintiff cannot prove the offense by selecting from the text bit by bit - sometimes by word, and sometimes by individual phrase.

As an example, the Supreme Court cited the claim of a certain commercial company against a newspaper, which reported on the enterprise's serious debts to creditors. And then she talked about the appearance of external management in this company. After going to court, it turned out that there is no external management in the commercial structure, but there are debts, and this is a fact. In confirmation, the editors showed a letter from the bank, which informs businessmen that they are debtors.

The courts take into account the cost of living in the region and do not agree with the citizen’s assessment of his suffering

A very thorny issue with criticism of public people. They are often offended and just as often go to court with lawsuits, accusing them of invasion of their privacy. So the Supreme Court even included claims against such famous citizens in a separate chapter. And he very clearly divided where personal and what is not personal life is for such people.

The Supreme Court emphasized that criticism of public figures is permissible within wider limits than criticism of private individuals. However, the Supreme Court agreed that such cases are difficult to deal with. And as an example, he cited the claim of a certain high-ranking regional official against a deputy, whose business reputation, in his opinion, was hurt when criticism of his actions was published on the Internet.

The Supreme Court, when reviewing the decision of local courts in this case, stated that the limits of permissible criticism of a public figure of an official are wider than of an ordinary person.

Another interesting layer of complaints to the courts with claims for protection of honor and dignity. Those against whom citizens have officially complained to government agencies go to court. They reported their suspicions or asked to check certain facts. After the inspection, if the government authorities did not find anything criminal, the offended objects of the inspection go to the courts with claims to protect their dignity. And there are many similar cases.

Regarding such situations, the Supreme Court said that such claims are not subject to consideration.

The Supreme Court also confirmed that the media are not responsible for the dissemination of information if they quoted verbatim a message published by another media outlet.

But the court made a reservation - in such a situation, if a published link was successfully challenged in court, then the media outlet that quoted it does not respond financially, but is obliged to provide a refutation.

It also happens that lies appear on the Internet, but without indicating the author. In this case, who should answer to the citizen? The Supreme Court explained that if it is impossible to determine who the author of false facts on the Internet is, then the owner of the site is responsible for everything.

An interesting question that worries everyone who goes to court with similar claims - how much does an honest name cost? What amount is payable if the court sided with the plaintiff?

According to the Supreme Court, the amount of compensation for moral damage must meet the requirements of reasonableness, fairness and “be proportionate to the consequences of the violation.”

The court emphasized that, as a rule, courts give less money than the plaintiff asked for. Regional courts in their calculations, the Supreme Court explained, take into account the cost of living in a particular region and often do not agree with a citizen’s subjective assessment of the level of his moral suffering. So, a person is sure that his suffering is worth a million, and he is awarded thirty thousand rubles in compensation from the offender.

True, sometimes the opposite happens, when a citizen who has filed a lawsuit cannot determine the amount of payments. In such cases, it happened that the courts refused to consider his application, citing precisely the fact that the person was undecided.

So, the Supreme Court made a special clarification for such cases - if a citizen cannot accurately calculate how much his insult and moral suffering are worth in rubles, then this cannot be considered a basis for refusing to award him the due payments.

Civil Code of the Russian Federation Article 152. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation

(see text in the previous edition)

1. A citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that it is true. The refutation must be made in the same way in which information about the citizen was disseminated, or in another similar way.

At the request of interested parties, it is possible to protect the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen even after his death.

2. Information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen and disseminated in the media must be refuted in the same media. A citizen in respect of whom the specified information has been disseminated in the media has the right to demand, along with a refutation, that his response also be published in the same media.

3. If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen is contained in a document emanating from an organization, such a document is subject to replacement or revocation.

4. In cases where information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen has become widely known and, in connection with this, a refutation cannot be brought to public knowledge, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as the suppression or prohibition of further dissemination of this information by seizure and destruction, without any compensation, of copies of material media containing the specified information made for the purpose of introducing into civil circulation, if without destroying such copies of material media, deleting the relevant information is impossible.

5. If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen turns out to be available on the Internet after its distribution, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as a refutation of this information in a way that ensures that the refutation is communicated to Internet users.

6. The procedure for refuting information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen in cases other than those specified in paragraphs 2 of this article is established by the court.

7. Application of penalties to the violator for failure to comply with a court decision does not relieve him of the obligation to perform the action prescribed by the court decision.

8. If it is impossible to identify the person who disseminated information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, the citizen in respect of whom such information was disseminated has the right to apply to the court to declare the disseminated information untrue.

9. A citizen in respect of whom information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation has been disseminated, along with a refutation of such information or publication of his response, has the right to demand compensation for losses and compensation for moral damage caused by the dissemination of such information.

10. The rules of paragraphs 1 of this article, with the exception of the provisions on compensation for moral damage, can also be applied by the court to cases of dissemination of any untrue information about a citizen, if such a citizen proves that the specified information does not correspond to reality. The limitation period for claims made in connection with the dissemination of the specified information in the media is one year from the date of publication of such information in the relevant media.

11. The rules of this article on the protection of a citizen’s business reputation, with the exception of provisions on compensation for moral damage, respectively apply to the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity.

Honor is a socially significant positive assessment of the moral and other traits and properties, the appearance of a citizen, which positively determine his position in society. Honor expresses the objectively significant position of a person.

Dignity is a reflection of this position in the consciousness of the individual, i.e.

Self-esteem of an individual based on his assessment by society.

Business reputation is a public assessment acquired by someone, an individual or a legal entity, a general opinion created about qualities, advantages, and disadvantages.

The honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen are protected by law. Libel is criminally punishable, i.e. dissemination of knowingly false information discrediting the honor and dignity of another person or undermining his reputation (Article 129 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The Civil Code of the Russian Federation protects the honor, dignity and business reputation of a person even in cases where the person who disseminated defamatory information about him was mistaken in good faith, i.e. believed that this information was true: in Art. 152 does not say that a necessary condition for the liability of the person who disseminated defamatory information is his guilt.

If there is intentional guilt of the person who disseminated defamatory information, the victim has the right to initiate a criminal case for libel or bring a claim for the protection of honor and dignity in civil proceedings.

But there may be cases when the conviction of the person guilty of slander does not ensure full satisfaction of the interests of the victim, for example, when the slanderous information was disseminated in the press. Therefore, in the presence of such a situation, the victim has the right to use simultaneously the norms of criminal and civil law to protect honor and dignity. The refusal to initiate a criminal case against the person who disseminated defamatory information, or the issuance of an acquittal under Art. 129 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, civil legislation and the practice of its application expands the protection of honor and dignity of a person.

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation protects only citizens from slander. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides civil protection of honor and dignity to both citizens and organizations (state, cooperative, etc.). Not any organization can be a party to civil proceedings, but only one that is a legal entity. Therefore, if the organization about which untrue defamatory information has been disseminated is not a legal entity, a claim in defense of its business reputation can be brought by the legal entity in which the named organization is located or is part of it.

Defamatory information is information that belittles the honor and dignity of a citizen in public opinion or the opinion of individual citizens from the point of view of compliance with laws, community rules and morality. Therefore, the dissemination of information about the absence or presence of certain character traits or inclinations that do not violate the specified norms and principles (for example, irritability, unsociability, lack of interest in literature, music, theater, sports) cannot be considered defamatory to honor and dignity. etc.).

If defamatory information is disseminated about an incapacitated person, his legal representative has the right to bring a claim to refute this information.

Such a claim may be brought after the death of the person whose honor was defamed by other interested parties, primarily members of his family.

The dissemination of information discrediting honor and dignity means not only their publication in the press, communication on radio, television, and other types of media, but also presentation in official characteristics, public speeches, statements addressed to officials, or communication of guilt, in including orally, to an indefinite number of persons or at least one person.

The defendant in the claim is the person who disseminated the defamatory information: a citizen or several citizens. But if this information was disseminated in the press, co-defendants will be both the citizen from whom the information came (the author) and the press organ that published it.

When satisfying the claim, the court is obliged to indicate in its decision the method of refutation of defamatory information (a message in the press, on the radio, replacement of a document containing defamatory information, etc.), and, if necessary, also the text of the refutation and the period within which it must follow .

When resolving disputes regarding the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, the court is guided not only by the norms of Russian legislation (Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), but also by virtue of Art. 1 of the Federal Law of March 30, 1998 N 54-FZ "On the ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols thereto" * (38) takes into account the legal position of the European Court of Human Rights, expressed in its decisions and relating to issues of interpretation and application of this Convention * (39) (primarily Article 10), bearing in mind that the concept of defamation used by the European Court of Human Rights in its decisions is identical to the concept of dissemination of untrue defamatory information contained in Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The direct executor of a court decision can only be a press organ, and not the author, whose refutation will be published only if the court decision obliges the press organ to do so. If defamatory information is published by the author under a code name (pseudonym) or without indicating the name of the author (anonymously), the defendant in the case is the press organ - a legal entity. If defamatory information is disseminated in a printed newspaper (large circulation) of an organization, the defendant in the claim is the body on whose behalf the newspaper is published.

Fair criticism of the shortcomings of members of labor collectives and public organizations, both ordinary workers and managers, at various kinds of meetings, in the press or in other forms cannot be classified as information discrediting honor and dignity. However, if the judgments expressed at meetings when discussing production and other issues, as well as the information set out in job descriptions, are not businesslike, but discredit the honor and dignity of the employee, they can be refuted on the basis of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation or (in the presence of slander) in criminal law. The proper defendants in claims to refute defamatory information contained in such characteristics are the persons who signed them and the organizations that issued the characteristics.

A person about whom defamatory information has been disseminated, who has filed a claim in court, is obliged to prove the fact that this information was disseminated about him, but is not obliged to prove that the information is untrue. The burden of proving that defamatory information is true lies with the person who disseminated it. But the plaintiff is not deprived of the opportunity to present evidence that the defamatory information disseminated about him is not true.

The statute of limitations does not apply to demands to refute widespread defamatory information about honor, dignity and business reputation.

If the decision to refute information discrediting the honor and dignity of the plaintiff is not executed or improperly executed within the prescribed period, the court has the right to impose a fine on the violator, recovered to the state’s income. Payment of a fine does not relieve the violator from the obligation to comply with the decision to refute information discrediting the plaintiff.

Article 152. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation

1. A citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that it is true. The refutation must be made in the same way in which information about the citizen was disseminated, or in another similar way.

At the request of interested parties, it is possible to protect the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen even after his death.

2. Information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen and disseminated in the media must be refuted in the same media. A citizen in respect of whom the specified information has been disseminated in the media has the right to demand, along with a refutation, that his response also be published in the same media.

3. If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen is contained in a document emanating from an organization, such a document is subject to replacement or revocation.

4. In cases where information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen has become widely known and, in connection with this, a refutation cannot be brought to public knowledge, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as the suppression or prohibition of further dissemination of this information by seizure and destruction, without any compensation, of copies of material media containing the specified information made for the purpose of introducing into civil circulation, if without destroying such copies of material media, deleting the relevant information is impossible.

5. If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen turns out to be available on the Internet after its distribution, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as a refutation of this information in a way that ensures that the refutation is communicated to Internet users.

6. The procedure for refuting information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen in cases other than those specified in paragraphs 2 - 5 of this article is established by the court.

7. Application of penalties to the violator for failure to comply with a court decision does not relieve him of the obligation to perform the action prescribed by the court decision.

8. If it is impossible to identify the person who disseminated information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, the citizen in respect of whom such information was disseminated has the right to apply to the court to declare the disseminated information untrue.

9. A citizen in respect of whom information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation has been disseminated, along with a refutation of such information or publication of his response, has the right to demand compensation for losses and compensation for moral damage caused by the dissemination of such information.

10. The rules of paragraphs 1 - 9 of this article, with the exception of the provisions on compensation for moral damage, can also be applied by the court to cases of dissemination of any untrue information about a citizen, if such a citizen proves that the specified information does not correspond to reality. The limitation period for claims made in connection with the dissemination of the specified information in the media is one year from the date of publication of such information in the relevant media.