In order to make it clear what is meant exactly in the legal sense by honor, dignity and business reputation, let's look at each of these concepts and try to look at them from a new point of view. Because it is precisely the everyday and philosophical view of honor, dignity and reputation that prevents us from turning to timelyprofessional lawyer . Unfortunately, for the most part, the citizens of our state swallow all the unfair attempts, limiting themselves to a furious discussion in the kitchen with friends and family: “They say, God will punish these scoundrels, Vasya,” or “Someday I will take revenge, they will recognize me, Masha, you’ll see.” " In order to have a chance at a legal victory, you need to understand that such a victory is possible. And know for sure in which cases the game will be worth the candle. Of course, it is impossible to cover all the subtleties of the topic in this article, but at least the reader will be able to get an idea of how all these concepts are presented in the legislative plane.
What is honor, business reputation and dignity?
Honor is first and foremost social concept. Honor means an assessment from society, and an assessment with a plus sign. The dignity of a citizen and the reputation of an organization are measured by honor.
Business reputation implies an objective (with a plus and a minus sign) public opinion about a citizen or a legal entity. Let’s move on to the concept of dignity. There is some division here:
A) honor and dignity legal entity
B) honor and dignity of a citizen
In case B, the concept of dignity seems much broader and more diverse. You can remember about human, national, female and male dignity. Of course, the recognition of man as the highest social value has so far been carried out only at the level of science fiction writers and in the programs of humanitarian organizations. However, in a legal sense, the protection of human dignity is a living concept, not a myth. Respect for the basic human rights of life, ensuring appropriate conditions for him - this is what is meant by respect for human dignity.
Let's return to point A (the honor and dignity of the legal entity). Everything is much simpler here. As a rule, we are talking about integrity in business.
Sometimes communities of people and social movements ask for the protection of dignity. In this case, one simple rule applies: only legal entities can count on civil legal protection. If you are a member of such public organization, remember that only individual citizens, as representatives, can demand protection of their personal honor and dignity.
Who can claim protection?
By studying the legislation, you can understand a lot about the society in which you live. As you can see, there is a sharp division into private individuals who can demand something for themselves personally (it is clear that you cannot demand much for yourself). Or we are talking about business, its integrity. Social movements and others who ardently desire social justice for the masses, as they say, are resting.
So, capable citizens or legal entities can go to court. If citizens are minors or incompetent, their interests are represented by legal representatives (parents, guardians). For those who really want to protect their rights on their own, the court provides such an opportunity. Although the effectiveness of such actions is great only in feature films with a romantic slant.
What can you demand in court, referring to Article 152 of the Civil Code?
Here the paths of the citizen and the organization converge again. Both have the right to demand a refutation of information that has damaged their honor, dignity and business reputation. Although the distributor of such information can prove that it is reliable (Article 152 of the Civil Code). Therefore, the right protected in this article can be defined, first of all, as the right to an objective and reliable assessment of his behavior and reputation. The public assessment must correspond to reality in business qualities, morality, compliance with the requirements of the law.
It should be noted that the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation is ensured not only by Art. 152 of the Civil Code, but also by other institutions civil law. Civil protection of honor and dignity should not be confused with similar criminal protection.
Criminal legislation also provides for liability for libel and insults (Articles 129.130 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). But if the intentionality of such actions is not proven, then there is no criminal liability.
Civil protection is also possible in case of unintentionality, since it does not depend on the degree of guilt of the person who spread the slander and insults. Also, civil protection exists for both citizens and legal entities; its goal is to restore the violated non-property interest.
Criminal legal protection is possible only for citizens, and is aimed primarily at punishing intentional slander, insults, and dissemination of false information with the aim of causing harm.
Many citizens believe that if they cannot prove the intentionality of actions, then defense is impossible for them. There are many more similar nuances that depend on each specific case. Therefore, you should not consult with your wife and neighbor - contact a good civil lawyer. Often, due to limited information in such matters, we tolerate things that we do not have to endure.
In what cases should you go to court?
Returning to defamatory information... First of all, we are talking about information that belittles the honor and dignity of an organization or a citizen in relation to public opinion or even the opinions of specific individuals.
Here are some examples:
- accusations of nationalist statements;
- V illegal receipt money;
- in deception at work,
- even in violation of family duty (for example, someone claims that you are kicking your wife and child out of the apartment);
- charge of insulting a woman's honor;
- in dishonesty of various kinds (including professional);
- in committing crimes;
- in slander, etc.
If it is not established that this information is reliable (presumption of integrity), then all this is considered false information that discredits a citizen or organization.
Unlike the legislation of many foreign countries, in Russia there is no direct ban on defamation yet. We are talking about the disclosure of truthful information that is not relevant to public assessment, but leads to moral oppression of the person in question. An example would be the disclosure of information that a person has AIDS. If you are faced with defamation, unfortunately, the Russian court will not help you yet.
Let's move on to disseminating defamatory information through means mass media. Here it must be taken into account that if defamatory information is communicated only to the person to whom it concerns, then this is not considered its dissemination. But reporting such information in anonymous statements and letters gives the victim the right to seek protection (again under Article 152 of the Civil Code). The main thing that the victim should know is when considering yourstatement of claim on the protection of honor and dignity, the court will determine:
- whether this information was disseminated;
- whether the information corresponds to reality;
- Do they discredit your honor and dignity?
Another important point, which ordinary people often do not know about - the statute of limitations does not apply to such claims (Article 208 of the Civil Code). You can continue to protect honor, dignity and business reputation even after the death of citizens (or after the termination of the activities of a legal entity - which can be important if they have legal successors).
Methods of protection
If the subject of the claim is confirmed in court, a decision is made to satisfy the subject of the claim. Otherwise, you should wait for a refusal. But, even before considering the claim, the court may oblige the defendant not to disseminate controversial information until a decision is made. If the claims are satisfied, the court determines the method of refutation.
If we are talking about the media, then the refutation comes through the same information body that disseminated the defamatory information. The same goes for TV shows. However, here sometimes the victim himself is given the opportunity to make a refutation (Article 46 of the Law on the Mass Media).
If we are talking about a job description or other document with defamatory information, they must be replaced.
In the case of books, pop performances, etc. - the court may order the production of this product to cease.
And finally, about the issue that interests almost everyone who applies for civil protection - compensation for moral damage. In accordance with Article 1064 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff has the right to raise such a question before the court and receive satisfaction.
Example: a partner rejected an already prepared contract due to false information disseminated about the plaintiff’s company. The media, as well as the guilty officials, are compensated for damages.
If the plaintiff suffers moral damage, it is compensated in accordance with Art. 151 and 1101 of the Civil Code (monetary compensation). The amount of compensation depends on the degree of guilt of the offender. The degree of physical and moral suffering of the plaintiff and his individual ability to endure this suffering are taken into account. Attention! Moral damage is not compensated for legal entities, only for citizens.
In this article, we have provided the basic concepts and examples that you will need to decide whether to contact a civil lawyer. When thinking about this topic, consider that the number of civil lawsuits and cases won has increased significantly in recent years. This means that shares of reputation, honor and dignity are growing. We wish you good luck in court!
If you are interested in the topic of civil legal relations, we also recommend reading - "What is compensation for moral damage (damage)? "
Sincerely,
Victoria Demidova, lawyer.
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.
The honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen, as well as the business reputation of a legal entity, are subject to protection. In the event of a 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, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that it is true. The refutation must be made in the same way in which the defamatory information was disseminated, or in another similar way (). In addition, a citizen in relation to 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 ().
On March 16, 2016, the RF Armed Forces in Once again reminded lower courts how to resolve cases on disputes over the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation (; hereinafter referred to as Review). Thus, the highest judicial body emphasized: the value judgments, opinions, and beliefs contained in the disputed statements are not the subject of judicial protection in the order, unless they are offensive in nature (). Let's look at 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 the claims that are not subject to the statute of limitations from "Encyclopedia of solutions. Contracts and other transactions" Internet version of the GARANT system. Get free
access for 3 days!
First and second instance
The plaintiffs went to court to protect their honor, dignity and business reputation. In support of their claims, they explained that the defendant accused the plaintiffs of corruption during a television broadcast. The plaintiffs asked the court to recognize the disseminated information as untrue, discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation, to oblige the television company to refute the disputed information by broadcasting about the court decision, and also to compensate moral injury.
The court of first instance partially satisfied the stated claim, reducing the amount of compensation for moral damage 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 upheld this decision without changes ().
BRIEFLY
Details of the solution: .
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 television company is obliged to refute the disputed information by broadcasting about the court decision. Refer the case for a new trial to the court of first instance with a different composition of judges.
The court decided: The decision of the court of first instance and the cassation ruling is cancelled, and the case is sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Supervisory authority
The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated: since the defendant’s statement began with the words “I believe that...”, the lower courts had to determine whether it was a statement of facts or an expression of a subjective opinion. The court of first instance, and subsequently the court of cassation, did not provide any legal arguments that would allow the disputed statement to be classified as a statement of facts. Link of these courts to the Russian language dictionary by S.I. Ozhegova, according to which an opinion is “a judgment expressing an assessment of something, an attitude towards someone or something, a view of something,” does not refute the defendant’s arguments that he expressed his own opinion.
When considering cases of protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, courts should distinguish between statements of facts, the correspondence of which can be verified, and value judgments, opinions, beliefs that are not the subject of judicial protection in accordance with the procedure and which must be verified for compliance with their reality. it is impossible (clause 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated February 24, 2005 No. 3 "").
OPINION
Loading...
