How to protect your honor after sentencing. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation made an important clarification, equally useful to ordinary citizens, commercial structures, officials and funds mass media. The Court studied the practice of consideration by domestic courts of disputes on the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation over the past five years.

It is no secret that defamation lawsuits always attract increased public attention. And they are not always perceived clearly. According to the Supreme Court, during the year our courts general jurisdiction consider about 5 thousand such disputes, and arbitration courts - about 800 cases that resolve issues of business reputation.

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

Such an analysis of the Supreme Court is also important because some laws have changed over the past few years. As a result, the framework for protecting the good name of those who were offended became wider.

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

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

In its review, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation named the main conditions in order to win the process for the protection of honor and dignity. According to him, there must be a combination of three conditions: information must be clearly defamatory in nature, they must be disseminated and not correspond to reality. But then the roles in the trial are distributed as follows - the one who complains about the information that offended him must himself prove that there was a fact of distribution, and this information is discrediting. The defendant is obliged to prove that the information disseminated by him is true.

What is the most important, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, should be taken into account when considering claims for the protection of honor and dignity?

The Court stressed the conditions under which applicants should be denied a trial. This is a failure to comply with the very three conditions - discrediting information, its dissemination and 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 the lawsuit of two citizens against each other. One said through the newspaper that a colleague had plagiarism in his dissertation, while 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 a colleague is right? To answer this question, it was necessary for the court to appoint an examination of the dissertation.

In fact, the Supreme Court spoke on the issue of appointing an expert examination more than once in this review. First of all, in order to understand - the information that was disseminated really discredits the honest name of a person, or does it just seem to the plaintiff? In order not to seem, the Supreme Court emphasized, in order to resolve such issues, it is necessary to invite specialists for consultation.

A strict distinction is made by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 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 belief?

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

While upholding the right to freedom of expression, the Supreme Court emphasizes that it is necessary to be especially careful in evaluating disputes when the parties to the conflict are political opponents.

Here is another interesting passage, which is important for those who can go to court with a similar claim. According to the Supreme Court, a person is released from liability if he proves that his information is generally true. At the same time, the plaintiff cannot prove an offense by choosing bit by bit from the text - where by a word, and where by a separate phrase.

As an example, the Supreme Court cited a lawsuit filed by a commercial firm against a newspaper that reported the enterprise's serious debts to creditors. And then she told about the appearance in this company external management. After applying to the 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 the merchants 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 their suffering

A very sharp question with criticism of public people. They are often offended and just as often go to court with lawsuits, accusing them of invading their privacy. So the Supreme Court even singled out claims against such well-known citizens in a separate chapter. And he very clearly divided where is personal and where is not personal life for such people.

The Supreme Court emphasized that criticism of public people is permissible to a wider extent than criticism of private individuals. At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed that such cases are difficult to handle. And as an example, he cited a lawsuit filed by a certain high-ranking official in the regional framework 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 the local courts on this claim, stated that the limits of permissible criticism in relation to the public figure of an official are wider than those of the layman.

Another curious layer of complaints to the courts with claims for the protection of honor and dignity. The courts are those against whom the citizens have officially complained to state structures. Reported their suspicions or asked to verify certain facts. After checking if government bodies nothing criminal was found, the offended objects of the check go to the courts with claims for the protection of dignity. And there are many such cases.

The Supreme Court said about such situations - such claims are not subject to consideration.

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

But the court made a reservation - in such a situation, if the published reference was successfully challenged in court, then the mass media that quoted it does not materially answer, but is obliged to give a refutation.

It also happens that a lie has appeared on the Internet, but without indicating the author. Who in this case should answer to the citizen? The Supreme Court explained - if it is impossible to determine who is the author of unreliable facts on the Internet, then the owner of the site is responsible for everything.

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

According to the Supreme Court, the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage must meet the requirements of reasonableness, fairness and "be proportionate to the consequences of the violation."

The court emphasized that, as a rule, the courts give less money than the plaintiff asked for. Regional courts in their calculations, the Supreme Court explained, take into account the subsistence level 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 decide on the amount of payments. In such cases, it happened that the courts refused to consider the application, referring precisely to the fact that the person was undecided.

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

Lawyer Exam

Question 84 Sharing the burden of proof. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation (Article 152 of the Civil Code)

A citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true.

At the request of interested persons, the protection of the honor and dignity of a citizen is allowed even after his death.

If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen is disseminated in the media, they must be refuted in the same media.

If the specified information is contained in a document emanating from the organization, such a document is subject to replacement or revocation.

The order of refutation in other cases is established by the court.

A citizen in respect of whom information infringing on his rights or legally protected interests has been published by the media has the right to publish his response in the same media.

If the court decision is not executed, the court has the right to impose a fine on the violator, levied in the amount and in the manner prescribed by the procedural legislation, to the income Russian Federation. Payment of the fine does not release the violator from the obligation to perform the action stipulated by the court decision.

A citizen in respect of whom information is disseminated that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, has the right, along with the refutation of such information, to demand compensation for losses and moral damage caused by their dissemination.

If it is impossible to identify the person who has disseminated information that discredits the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, the person in respect of whom such information is disseminated has the right to apply to the court for recognition of the disseminated information as untrue.

Rules Art. 152 of the Civil Code on the protection of the business reputation of a citizen, respectively, apply to the protection of business reputation legal entity.

Burden of proof.

By virtue of paragraph 1 of article 152 Civil Code Russian Federation, the obligation to prove the validity of the disseminated information lies with the defendant. The plaintiff is obliged to prove the fact of dissemination of information by the person against whom the claim is brought, as well as the discrediting nature of this information.

At the same time, proceeding from paragraph 3 of the said article, in the case when a citizen, in respect of whom the mass media published information corresponding to reality, infringing on his rights and legally protected interests, disputes the refusal of the editors of the mass media to publish his response to this publication, the plaintiff is obliged to prove that the disseminated information infringes on his rights and legally protected interests.

In accordance with Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which guarantee everyone the right to freedom of thought and speech, as well as freedom of the media, the position of the European Court of Human Rights when considering cases for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, the courts should distinguish between existing statements of facts, the conformity of which can be verified, and value judgments, opinions, beliefs that are not the subject of judicial protection in accordance with Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since, being an expression of the subjective opinion and views of the defendant , cannot be checked for validity

From the book Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses author Laws of the Russian Federation

Article 5. 13. Failure to provide an opportunity to publish a refutation or other explanation in defense of honor, dignity or business reputation

From the book Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Part one author Laws of the Russian Federation

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, if the disseminator of such information does not prove that they correspond to reality.

From the book Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses (CAO RF) author State Duma

Article 5.13. Failure to provide an opportunity to publish a refutation or other explanation in defense of honor, dignity or business reputation Failure to provide an opportunity to publish (publish) a refutation or other explanation in defense of honor, dignity or

From the book Handbook of Evidence in Civil Litigation author Reshetnikova I.V.

1.12. Cases on the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation The dignity of the individual is protected by the state, and nothing can be a basis for belittling it (Article 21 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). This guarantee is given to any person: the dignity of not only an adult and

From the book Collection of current resolutions of the plenums of the supreme courts of the USSR, the RSFSR and the Russian Federation on criminal cases the author Mikhlin A S

3.3. Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation "On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities" (1) dated February 24, 2005 No. 3 In accordance with Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has

From the book Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Parts one, two, three and four. Text with amendments and additions as of May 10, 2009 author Team of authors

From the book Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses. Text with amendments and additions as of November 1, 2009 author author unknown

From the book Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Parts one, two, three and four. Text with amendments and additions as of November 1, 2009 author author unknown

From the book Handbook of a civil judge author Tolcheev Nikolai Kirillovich

Chapter 5

From the book Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Parts one, two, three and four. Text with amendments and additions as of October 21, 2011 author Team of authors

Article 152. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation 1. A citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that they correspond to reality.

From the book Civil Code of the Russian Federation the author GARANT

From the book Encyclopedia of a Lawyer author author unknown

From the book Investigative Journalism author Team of authors

Claims for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation states: “A citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that they correspond

From the book How and where to write a complaint correctly in order to defend your rights author Nadezhdina Vera

Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2005 No. 3 “On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities” In accordance with Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to

From the author's book

Chapter 6. Judicial Protection of the Honor and Dignity of Citizens, Business Reputation of Legal Entities A citizen or organization has the right to demand in court that information discrediting their honor and dignity, business reputation be refuted, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that

From the author's book

Statement of claim for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation To _____________________________ district (city) court______________________________ region (territory, republic) Plaintiff: _____________________ (name of organization or full name, address) Respondent: ________________ (name of organization or full name ,

Restoration of reputation and protection of honor is the legal right of every citizen, which can be resorted to in cases of moral damage in the form of dissemination of defamatory information that does not correspond to reality.

Table of contents:

Definition of concepts of honor and dignity

The Government of the Russian Federation does not regulate the concepts of honor and dignity, however, based on the provisions of legal practice, the following can be noted:

the concept of honor means the assessment of the individual by society, which is based on its social and spiritual principles;
dignity means a citizen's statement about himself as an individual, his assessment of personal significance (introspection);
assessment of the professional and personal characteristics of a citizen in the aggregate is his business reputation (usually applied to legal entities).

The protection of these forms of personality assessment is regulated by the norms of civil, administrative, and also criminal law.

For example, the oppression of the dignity of the individual by any illegal actions regarded as an insult. The offender is subject to penalties in accordance with the Code of Administrative Offenses. Taking into account the circumstances, motives and other components, monetary compensation is paid in the amount of up to 5,000 rubles.

note

Dissemination of discrediting information about someone is punishable by the Criminal Code. Imprisonment for slander does not occur, however, the perpetrator may be charged, as a punishment, with executive work for a long period or compensation on an especially large scale (a fine can reach 5,000,000 rubles in proportion to the deed).

What is the harm to honor and dignity

In accordance with Article 152 of the Civil Code, causing moral harm to a person by disseminating false and defamatory information in society is a humiliation of dignity. Distribution methods do not matter.

The reason for claiming protection of reputation is the inconsistency of the disclosed data with reality.

Provision of evidence of the veracity and accuracy of information rests with the citizen who disseminated it. At the same time, it should be taken into account that there is a presumption of innocence, according to which all the information disseminated is initially considered false. The opposite must be proved in court or in another manner established by the Government of the Russian Federation.

An example is the dissemination of information that a citizen is guilty or contributed to the commission of a criminal act. Even with the indisputability of the data and the correctness of the citizen who provided them, they are not considered valid without a court decision.

Methods for protecting honor and dignity

To protect his reputation, a citizen must file a lawsuit in court. The application must indicate:

As a result of the trial, the plaintiff is entitled to expect:

official confirmation of the falsity of the information disseminated about him by the defendant;
compensation for moral damages monetary compensation.

To the violator, at the discretion of the court, two types of punishment can be applied simultaneously, depending on the circumstances, his goals, the degree of repentance.

Compensation for moral damage

To receive monetary compensation, it is not enough to refute false information, it is also necessary to prove the infliction of moral harm. At the same time, it is rather difficult to provide evidence of spiritual suffering. The provisions of the legislation on this issue are rather vague and do not explain how exactly moral suffering should be confirmed.

According to Article 1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the signs of assessing moral damage are:

his character;
degree of guilt of the defendant;
the circumstances of the crime;
characteristics of the victim.

In accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court No. 10, moral damage can be worries due to the loss of a job, inability to continue the usual way of life, and more. As a rule, in judicial practice, under the former way of life, society's refusal to communicate and interact with the victim, his exclusion from any organizations, and so on, are considered. All these factors, resulting from the slander or dissemination of false information, can have a significant Negative influence on a citizen.

According to Article 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, compensation is collected from the perpetrator only in monetary terms. The amount is determined by the court taking into account the requirements put forward. At the same time, any boundaries general rules and views do not exist. The victim may demand the recovery of monetary compensation in any amount, however, the court has the right to reduce it.

note

A citizen has the right to apply to the authorities for compensation for mental suffering at any time. According to Article 208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, cases on the protection of intangible rights do not have a limitation period.

Refutation of damaging data

Discrediting information is refuted by the provisions of Article 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. This is done in the same way that the information was disseminated. However, there are some features:

if the disclosure of distorted information was made in the media, the victim has the right, together with a refutation of the publication, to demand a personal response;
documentation that contains false information is subject to seizure (this also applies to special orders, orders of institutions);
if it is impossible to refute the information, the victim has the right to demand the removal of materials with their mention from all sources of mass media (or the removal of media), as well as a ban on their further mailing and distribution;
when publishing damaging data in in social networks or sites of Internet resources, posts are deleted with their further refutation.

1. A citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true. The refutation must be made in the same way that information about the citizen was disseminated, or in another similar way.

At the request of interested persons, the protection of the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen is allowed 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 said information has been disseminated in the media, has the right to demand, along with a refutation, also the publication of his answer 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 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 the refutation cannot be brought to public attention, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as the suppression or prohibition of the further dissemination of the specified information by withdrawing and destruction without any compensation of copies made for the purpose of introducing into civil circulation material carriers containing the specified information, if without the destruction of such copies of material media, the removal of the relevant information is impossible.

5. If information that discredits the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen becomes available on the Internet after their dissemination, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as a refutation of the specified information in a way that ensures that the refutation is brought to the attention of Internet users.

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

7. The application to the violator of measures of responsibility for non-execution of a court decision does not relieve him of the obligation to perform the action provided for by the court decision.

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

9. A citizen in respect of whom information is disseminated that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, along with the refutation of such information or the publication of his answer, 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, may also be applied by the court to cases of dissemination of any information about a citizen that does not correspond to reality, 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 said information in the mass media is one year from the date of publication of such information in the relevant mass media.

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

Commentary on Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. Civil law does not define the concepts of "honor", "dignity", " business reputation". These intangible benefits are protected in the manner prescribed by Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, although it should be borne in mind that.

In science, it is customary to consider honor as a public assessment of a person, a measure of the spiritual and social qualities of a citizen, dignity - as a self-esteem own qualities and abilities, and business reputation - as a quality that manifests itself in professional activity. At the same time, in judicial practice, the listed concepts are almost not separated, in any case, honor and dignity are actually protected as a single intangible benefit.

———————————
On this see: Anisimov A.L. Civil law protection of honor, dignity and business reputation under the legislation of the Russian Federation. M., 2001. S. 9; Maleina M.N. Decree. op. S. 136.

See, for example: Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2005 N 3 "On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities."

Business reputation is considered as a property inherent not only to citizens, but also to legal entities. Lawsuits for the protection of the business reputation of legal entities are very common (see. information mail Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated September 23, 1999 N 46 “Review of the practice of permitting arbitration courts disputes related to the protection of business reputation).

2. The commented article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation considers as an infringement on honor, dignity and business reputation only the dissemination of certain information, without mentioning such an offense as insult.

Meanwhile, value judgments, opinions, and beliefs are often expressed against citizens and legal entities, which are an expression of the views of the one who speaks. Such judgments may concern not only professional, but also personal, moral qualities of a particular citizen. In accordance with Art. 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and art. 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone is guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and speech, and therefore such statements are not prohibited in principle.

However, the form in which a value judgment was made against a particular person should not be offensive (“indecent” - see Article 130 of the Criminal Code). The appeals “scoundrel”, “scoundrel”, obscene expressions, etc. can be perceived as an insult.

As noted in paragraph 9 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2005 N 3 “On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities”, if the subjective opinion was expressed in an offensive form degrading the honor, dignity or business reputation of the plaintiff, the defendant may be required to compensate for moral damage caused to the plaintiff by insult (Article 130 of the Criminal Code, Art.,). In this way, arbitrage practice expands the limits of protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, allowing such protection not only in cases of dissemination of false and discrediting information. In essence, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation proposes to protect the good name of a citizen.

In addition, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the commented article 152 of the Civil Code, a citizen in respect of whom information infringing on his rights or legally protected interests has been published by the media has the right to publish his answer in the same media. The right to reply (comment, remark) is also enshrined in Art. 46 of the Mass Media Law.

3. The basis for the application of the provisions of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation measures is the dissemination of false information that discredits a citizen.

Thus, the first condition stipulated by the legislation is the fact of dissemination of the said information. As noted in the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2005 N 3, the dissemination of information discrediting the honor and dignity of citizens or the business reputation of citizens and legal entities should be understood as the publication of such information in the press, broadcast on radio and television, demonstration in newsreel programs and other mass media, distribution on the Internet, as well as using other means of telecommunications, presentation in performance characteristics, public speaking, statements addressed to officials, or a message in one form or another, including oral, to at least one person. The communication of such information to the person to whom they concern cannot be recognized as their dissemination, if the person who provided this information has taken sufficient confidentiality measures so that they do not become known to third parties. Therefore, the dissemination of information is a message to a third party, and not to the one whom this information concerns.

The second condition stipulated by the commented article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is the discrediting nature of the information. It is about assessing the moral qualities of a person. The criteria that would be met by information discrediting a citizen are not established by law, and cannot be established by law, since public morality is an extremely dynamic category. An act that until recently caused public condemnation (for example, divorce, etc.) can be perceived at the moment in a team of people as something ordinary and quite acceptable.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation presented its interpretation of discrediting information in the Decree of February 24, 2005: “... discrediting, in particular, are information containing allegations of a violation by a citizen or legal entity of the current legislation, the commission of a dishonest act, incorrect, unethical behavior in personal, public or political life, bad faith in the implementation of production, economic and entrepreneurial activity, violation business ethics or customs business turnover that detract from the honor and dignity of a citizen or the business reputation of a citizen or a legal entity.

The proposed concept is largely reduced to the victim's subjective idea of his honor and business reputation. Taking into account the fact that for the application of measures of civil law impact, provided for in Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is required that the victim himself go to court, the legal understanding of honor, dignity and business reputation is largely formed by the applicants themselves.

And finally, the third condition referred to in Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, is the false nature of the information disseminated about a citizen. As the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation points out, information that does not correspond to reality is statements about facts or events that did not take place in reality at the time to which the disputed information relates. The information contained in judicial decisions and sentences, decisions of the preliminary investigation bodies and other procedural or other official documents, for appeal and contestation of which is provided for by another judicial procedure established by laws, cannot be considered as untrue (for example, they cannot be refuted in accordance with Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the information set out in the dismissal order, since such an order can only be challenged in the manner prescribed by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

The duty to prove that the disseminated information is true lies with the defendant. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the fact of dissemination of information by the person against whom the claim is brought, as well as the discrediting nature of this information.

4. The commented article provides for several ways to protect honor, dignity and business reputation, which can be applied, including at the same time.

The first way is to refute the information, which in turn is possible in various situations.

If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen is disseminated in the media, they must be refuted in the same media. In accordance with Art. 44 of the Mass Media Law, the refutation must indicate which information is not true, when and how it was disseminated by this mass media. Refutation in periodical printed edition must be typed in the same font and placed under the heading "Refutation", as a rule, in the same place on the page as the message or material being refuted. On radio and television, a refutation must be broadcast at the same time of day and, as a rule, in the same program as the refuted message or material.

The volume of the refutation cannot exceed twice the volume of the refuted fragment of the disseminated message or material. A rebuttal cannot be required to be shorter than one standard typewritten page. A rebuttal on radio and television should not take up less air time than it takes for an announcer to read a standard page of typewritten text.

A rebuttal should follow:

1) in the mass media that are published (on the air) at least once a week - within 10 days from the date of receipt of the request for refutation or its text;

2) in other mass media - in the issue being prepared or in the nearest planned issue.

Within a month from the date of receipt of the request for a refutation or its text, the editorial office is obliged to notify the interested citizen or organization in writing of the expected period for distributing the refutation or of the refusal to distribute it, indicating the reasons for the refusal. A refutation distributed in the media in accordance with Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, may be presented in the form of a message about the court decision adopted in this case, including the publication of the text of the court decision.

The second case of refutation is the replacement or revocation of a document emanating from the organization (service or other characteristics, etc.).

In other cases, the refutation procedure is established directly in the court decision, in the operative part of which, as explained in the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2005 N 3, the term and method of refuting discrediting information that does not correspond to reality should be indicated and, if necessary, the text such a refutation with a mention of what kind of information is defamatory information that does not correspond to reality, when and how it was disseminated.

The court decision on the refutation, set out in the writ of execution, refers to the requirements of a non-property nature. Therefore, paragraph 4 of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that if the court decision is not executed, the court has the right to impose a fine on the violator.

In accordance with Art. 105 federal law dated October 2, 2007 N 229-ФЗ “On Enforcement Proceedings” in cases of non-fulfillment by the debtor of the requirements contained in the executive document within the time period established for voluntary execution, as well as non-execution of the executive document subject to immediate execution, within a day from the moment receipt of a copy of the decision of the bailiff-executor on the initiation of enforcement proceedings, the bailiff-executor issues a decision on the collection of the enforcement fee and establishes the debtor new term for execution. If the debtor fails to fulfill the requirements contained in the executive document, without good reasons in again set time the bailiff applies to the debtor a fine, under Art. 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and establishes a new deadline for execution.

On the basis of Article 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the non-fulfillment by the debtor of the non-property requirements contained in the executive document within the period established by the bailiff after the collection of the enforcement fee entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of 1 thousand to 2500 rubles; on the officials- from 10 thousand to 20 thousand rubles; for legal entities - from 30 thousand to 50 thousand rubles. Non-fulfillment by the debtor of the non-property requirements contained in the executive document within the time period newly established by the bailiff-executor after the imposition of an administrative fine, entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of 2 thousand to 2500 rubles; for officials - from 15 thousand to 20 thousand rubles; for legal entities - from 50 thousand to 70 thousand rubles.

As stated in paragraph 4 of the commented article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the payment of a fine does not relieve the violator of the obligation to perform the action provided for by the court decision.

As a special method of protection within the framework of the commented article, one should consider going to court with a request to recognize the disseminated information as untrue. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation grants such a right if it is impossible to identify the person who disseminated information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen. At the same time, the legislation does not provide for the obligatory publication of a court decision that has entered into legal force on recognizing the disseminated information as false. Thus, a citizen who has achieved a positive court decision will only be able to present it in necessary cases in order to confirm the false nature of the information previously disseminated about him.

In addition to refutation, the commented Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation grants the right to the victim to demand compensation for losses and moral damage caused by the dissemination of false, discrediting information. In accordance with the person whose right has been violated, may demand full compensation for the losses caused to him, which means the expenses that the specified person has made or will have to make to restore the violated right, loss or damage to his property (actual damage), as well as lost income, which that person would have received normal conditions civil turnover, if his right had not been violated (lost profit).

The civil legislation of the Russian Federation does not know such a way to protect personal non-property rights as an apology, therefore, despite the fact that for many victims it would be desirable for many victims to apologize, the court is not entitled to apply such a method of protection.

At the same time, as noted in paragraph 18 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2005 N 3, the court has the right to approve a settlement agreement, according to which the parties, by mutual agreement, provided for the defendant to apologize in connection with the spread of untrue discrediting information regarding the plaintiff, as long as it does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of other persons and does not contradict the law, which does not contain such a prohibition.

5. Legal entities, as noted, are the owners of such an intangible good as goodwill. All provisions of the commented article relating to the business reputation of a citizen are also applicable to the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity. However, a legal entity is not entitled to claim compensation for moral damage. This position is generally accepted in science. civil law and is connected with the essence of a legal entity - an artificially created subject that is not capable of undergoing physical or moral suffering. However, a different position is set out in the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of December 4, 2003 N 508-O “On the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Shlafman Vladimir Arkadevich about the violation of his constitutional rights by paragraph 7 of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”.

The honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen, as well as the business reputation of a legal entity, are subject to protection. In case of violation of these intangible benefits, the victim has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true. The refutation must be made in the same way that the defamatory information was disseminated, or in another similar way (). In addition, a citizen in respect of whom information is disseminated that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, along with the refutation of such information or the publication of his answer, has the right to demand damages and compensation for moral damage ().

On March 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation once again reminded the lower courts how to resolve disputes over the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation (; hereinafter - Review). Thus, the highest judicial body emphasized: the value judgments, opinions, and beliefs contained in the contested statements are not subject to judicial protection in the order, unless they are offensive (). Let's see how this provision is applied in practice.

Please note that claims for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation can be made outside the three-year limitation period. Find out all claims that are not covered by the statute of limitations from "Encyclopedias of decisions. Contracts and other transactions" Internet version of the GARANT system. Get free
access for 3 days!

First and second instance

The plaintiffs applied to the court for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation. In support of the stated claims, they explained that the defendant accused the plaintiffs of corruption during the television broadcast. The plaintiffs asked the court to recognize the disseminated information as untrue, discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation, to oblige the TV company to refute the disputed information by broadcasting on the air about the decision taken by the court, and also to compensate for moral damage.

The court of first instance partially satisfied the stated claim, reducing the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage by five times, from 2.5 million to 500 thousand rubles. in favor of each of the two plaintiffs (decision of the Savelovsky District Court of Moscow dated April 28, 2010 No. 33-21470). The Court of Cassation left this decision unchanged ().

BRIEFLY

Solution details: .

Applicant Requirements: Cancel the decision of the court of first instance and the cassation ruling, according to which the information disseminated by the defendant was recognized as untrue, discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation; the defendant is obliged to compensate for moral damage, and the TV company is obliged to refute the disputed information by broadcasting on the air about the decision taken by the court. Send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance in a different composition of judges.

The court decided: to cancel the decision of the court of first instance and the cassation ruling, to send the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance.

supervisory authority

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that since the defendant's statement began with the words "I believe that ...", the lower courts had to establish whether it was a statement of facts or an expression of a subjective opinion. The court of first instance and, following it, the court of cassation did not adduce any legal arguments that would allow the impugned statement to be attributed to a statement of facts. Reference of these courts to the dictionary of the Russian language S.I. Ozhegov, according to which an opinion is "a judgment expressing an assessment of something, an attitude towards someone or something, a look at something," does not refute the defendant's arguments that he expressed his own opinion.

When considering cases on the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, courts should distinguish between statements of facts, the validity of which can be verified, and value judgments, opinions, beliefs that are not the subject of judicial protection in the manner and check which for compliance with their reality. it is impossible (clause 9 of the Decree of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces dated February 24, 2005 No. 3 "").

OPINION