Civil Code of the Russian Federation (CC RF). Civil Code of the Russian Federation (CC RF) Article 152 Part 8

Official text:

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 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 mass media, must be refuted in the same media. A citizen in respect of whom the said information is disseminated in the mass media has the right to demand, along with a refutation, also the publication of his answer in the same mass 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 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 of material carriers made for the purpose of putting into civil circulation containing the specified information, if without the destruction of such copies of material carriers, 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 the 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 indicated 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.

Lawyer's comment:

The concepts of "honor", "dignity", "reputation" essentially coincide, determining the moral status of the individual, his self-esteem and position in society. Dignity and the right to protect one's good name are recognized for every person and are protected by the state as the highest values (Articles 2, 21, 23 of the Constitution). Business reputation characterizes a citizen as an employee, is an assessment of his professional qualities significant for demand in the labor market.

To disseminate defamatory information means to communicate it to a wide audience, to several or at least one person. The message can be public or private, made in written or oral form, using the media, as well as by image (drawing, photomontage). The communication of information discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation to the person to whom they relate is not recognized as dissemination.

The honor and dignity of a citizen is also protected by the criminal law, which provides for liability for slander and insult (Articles 129, 130 of the Criminal Code). Simultaneous consideration of a criminal case and resolution of a claim under Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is unacceptable. However, the refusal to initiate or terminate a criminal case, the issuance of a verdict (both guilty and acquittal) does not prevent the consideration of a claim for the protection of honor and dignity in civil proceedings.

Discrediting information detracts from the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen in public opinion or opinion individuals. The objective criteria for the recognition by the court of the discrediting nature of the disseminated information are the current legal norms, the principles of universal and professional morality, and business customs.

Discrediting allegations of violations of these norms and principles are usually reports of a citizen committing specific unworthy acts, the so-called judgments of fact. Estimates (opinions, interpretations) should be distinguished from factual judgments. Evaluation does not state a fact, but expresses a person's attitude to an object or its individual features ("good - bad", "good - evil", "worst - best", "attractive - repulsive", etc.).

At the same time, it should be taken into account that in addition to distinct descriptive and evaluative judgments, the language has a wide layer of evaluative expressions with actual reference, i.e. words that give a specific description, containing statements in the form of an assessment ("criminal", "dishonest", "deceitful", "incompetent", "optional", etc.). The validity of such statements can be verified; if not proven, they are subject to refutation. In any case, regardless of the degree of specification, political and ideological assessments cannot be recognized as discrediting; critical remarks on a scientific work or concept; neutral in ethics and business relations information about character traits, diseases, physical disabilities.

Article 152 protects honor, dignity and business reputation only on the condition that discrediting information does not correspond to reality. Therefore, insulting expressions and comparisons that cannot be verified for truth are not subject to refutation. Claims to the form of presentation of the material, style of presentation, artistic techniques used by the author of the publication cannot constitute the subject of a claim under this article. To determine the nature of the disseminated information, the judge must take into account the purpose and genre of publication, the context in which the disputed word or phrase is used.

A claim for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation has the right to present capable citizens who consider that discrediting and untrue information has been spread about them. For the protection of the honor and dignity of minors and incapacitated persons, their legal representatives may apply to the court. Defendants in cases of protection of honor, dignity and business reputation are persons who have disseminated defamatory information. Mandatory complicity arises in lawsuits containing demands to refute information disseminated in the media: the author and the editorial office of the relevant media are involved as defendants. If, when considering such information, the name of the author is not indicated or he used a pseudonym, one editorial board is responsible for the claim.

If the editorial office of the media outlet is not a legal entity, the founder of this media outlet is involved as a defendant in the case. However, even without being a legal entity, the editorial office is the proper defendant in all lawsuits containing demands for the refutation of discrediting information in the media. If the claim is satisfied, the founder may be held liable in the form of compensation for losses and moral damage.

Refutation - special measure protection applied in case of violation of honor, dignity and business reputation. The duty of refutation rests with the distributor of discrediting and untrue information, regardless of his guilt. The obligation often imposed by the court on the defendant "to apologize to the plaintiff" does not correspond to the law. The refutation consists in reporting a discrepancy with reality, and not in asking for forgiveness.

Article 152 enshrines the right of a citizen to respond to the media that has published information that infringes on his rights or legitimate interests. Such information may be distortions of the biography or labor activity a citizen or information that, although true, is associated with an invasion of privacy, discloses personal or family secrets. In accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Mass Media", a citizen has the right to apply to the court with a request to publish a response if the editors of the media refused to publish it.

Compensation for harm caused by the dissemination of information discrediting honor, dignity or business reputation is carried out in accordance with the norms contained in Chapter 59 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation "Obligations as a result of causing harm." Property damage (losses) is compensated in the presence of guilt (), moral damage is compensated regardless of guilt ().

In cases involving lawsuits against the media, the amount of compensation depends mainly on the nature and content of the defamatory information and the extent of its dissemination. The Law of the Russian Federation "On the Mass Media" (Article 57) provides a list of circumstances that relieve the editorial office and the journalist from the obligation to check the accuracy of the information they report and, therefore, exclude their responsibility for the dissemination of discrediting and unreliable information.

A claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage can be filed independently if the editorial board of the media voluntarily gave a refutation that satisfies the plaintiff. The transformation of a claim for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation into a claim for compensation for moral damage, however, is unacceptable if you disagree with the refutation of the author of the published material.

A legal entity has the right to demand a refutation in court, has the right to publish its response in the media, etc. At the request of interested parties (for example, assignees), it is allowed to protect the business reputation of a legal entity after its liquidation.

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.

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.

Commentary on article 152

1. Honor, dignity, business reputation are close moral categories. Honor and dignity reflect an objective assessment of a citizen by others and his self-esteem. Business reputation is an assessment of the professional qualities of a citizen or legal entity.

Honor, dignity, business reputation of a citizen in the aggregate determine the "good name", the inviolability of which is guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 23).

2. To protect the honor, dignity, business reputation of a citizen, a special method is provided: refutation of widespread discrediting information. This method can be used if there is a combination of three conditions.

First, the information must be damaging. The assessment of information as discrediting is based not on a subjective, but on an objective sign. Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of August 18, 1992 N 11 "On Certain Issues Arising in Courts Considering Cases on the Protection of the Honor and Dignity of Citizens, as well as the Business Reputation of Citizens and Legal Entities" specifically notes that "discrediting is information that does not correspond to reality, containing allegations of a violation by a citizen or organization of the current legislation or moral principles (of committing a dishonest act, improper behavior in work collective, everyday life and other information discrediting the production, economic and social activities, business reputation, etc.), which detract from honor and dignity."

Secondly, information must be disseminated. The aforementioned Decree of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation also clarifies what should be understood by the dissemination of information: "The publication of such information in the press, broadcast on radio and television programs, demonstration in newsreel programs and other mass media (media), presentation in official characteristics, public speaking, statements addressed officials, or communication in a different, including oral, form to several or at least one person. "It is specially emphasized that the communication of information to the person they concern is not considered as distribution in private.

Thirdly, the information must not be true. At the same time, the commented article enshrines the principle of the presumption of innocence of the victim inherent in civil law: information is considered untrue until the person who disseminated it proves the opposite (see Bulletin of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. 1995. N 7. P. 6).

3. For the protection of the honor, dignity and business reputation of the deceased, see comments. to Art. 150 GK.

4. In paragraph 2 of the commented article, the procedure for refuting discrediting information that was circulated in the media is specially highlighted. It is regulated in more detail in the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 "On the Mass Media" (Vedomosti RF. 1992. N 7. Art. 300). In addition to the requirement that the refutation must be placed in the same media in which the defamatory information was disseminated, the Law established that it must be typed in the same font, in the same place on the page. If a refutation is given on radio or television, it must be broadcast at the same time of day and, as a rule, in the same program as the refuted message (Articles 43, 44 of the Law).

In the commented article, the procedure for refuting the information contained in the document is specially highlighted - such a document is subject to replacement. It could be a replacement work book, which contains a discrediting entry about the dismissal of an employee, characteristics, etc.

Although in all other cases the order of refutation is established by the court, it follows from the meaning of the commented article that it must be made in the same way that the defamatory information was disseminated. This is the position taken by arbitrage practice.

5. From paragraph 2 of the commented article it follows that in all cases of infringement on honor, dignity and business reputation, a citizen is provided with judicial protection. Therefore, the rule established by the Mass Media Law, according to which the victim must first apply to the media with a request for refutation, cannot be considered as mandatory.

Special permission on this issue is contained in the Decree of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces dated August 18, 1992 N 11. It notes that "clauses 1 and 7 of article 152 of the first part of the Civil Code Russian Federation It was established that a citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, and a legal entity - information discrediting his business reputation. At the same time, the law does not provide for the obligatory preliminary filing of such a demand with the defendant, including in the case when the claim is brought against the mass media that disseminated the above information.

6. Paragraph 3 of the commented article establishes the procedure for protecting the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen in the event that information is disseminated in the media that is devoid of signs that give the right to refute it. It can be, for example, discrediting, but true information, or not discrediting information that does not correspond to reality, but at the same time, their distribution infringes on the rights and legitimate interests of a citizen, detracts from his business reputation. In these cases, the citizen has the right not to a refutation, but to an answer, which must be placed in the same media. Although such a method of protection as the publication of a response is established only in relation to the media, it is possible that it can also be used when disseminating information in a different way.

Failure to comply with these court decisions is punishable by a fine in accordance with Art. 406 Code of Civil Procedure and art. 206 APC in the amount of up to 200 established by law minimum dimensions wages.

7. Special methods of protection - giving a refutation or answer are applied regardless of the fault of the persons who allowed the dissemination of such information.

Paragraph 5 of the commented article confirms the possibility of using, in addition to special and general methods of protection, to protect honor, dignity and business reputation. At the same time, the most common ones are named: compensation for damages and compensation for moral harm. Property and non-property damage resulting from a violation of honor, dignity and business reputation is subject to compensation in accordance with the norms contained in Ch. 59 of the Civil Code (obligation due to harm). In accordance with these norms, compensation for property damage (losses) is possible only in case of guilty dissemination of information (Article 1064 of the Civil Code), and compensation for moral damage - regardless of guilt (Article 1100 of the Civil Code).

In addition to those mentioned, any other general methods of protection can be used (see the commentary to Article 12 of the Civil Code), in particular, the suppression of actions that violate the right or threaten to violate it (confiscation of the circulation of a newspaper, magazine, book, prohibition of the publication of a second edition etc.).

8. Clause 6 contains one more special way of protecting the honor, dignity and business reputation of citizens in the case of anonymous dissemination of information: recognition by the court of the disseminated information as untrue. The Code of Civil Procedure does not establish the procedure for considering such requirements. Obviously, they should be considered in the order of special proceedings provided for the establishment of facts of legal significance (Chapters 26, 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The same procedure, obviously, can be used if there is no distributor (death of a citizen or liquidation of a legal entity).

The cases of anonymous dissemination of information do not include publications in the media without indicating their author. In these cases, there is always a distributor, and therefore, responsible person this media is speaking.

9. In the event of a violation of the business reputation of a legal entity, it has the right to demand a refutation of the widespread discrediting information, replacement of the issued document, publication of a response in the media, establishment of the fact that the disseminated information does not correspond to reality, etc. The legal entity has the right to demand compensation for losses. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, it is in accordance with Art. 151 of the Civil Code is compensated only to citizens, since only they can undergo moral and physical suffering.

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

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.

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

1. There is no legal definition of honor, dignity and business reputation. Usually in the doctrine honor is understood as social assessment qualities and abilities of a particular person, dignity - self-esteem of one's qualities and abilities, reputation (Latin reputatio - reflection, reflection) - an opinion formed about a person based on an assessment of his socially significant qualities, including professional ones (in the latter case, it is customary to talk about business reputation). Moreover, reputation as a public opinion that has developed about a person is personified, among other things, through a name (name) (any subject has the right to demand from everyone and everyone that only those actions and (or) events in which he participated) be associated with his name (name) and appearance. Therefore, the protection of reputation is often called the protection of a good name and is also associated with the protection of the image of a citizen (see comments to Article 152.1 of the Civil Code).

Although all of these benefits are recognized as independent, in content they are inextricably linked with each other, determining the status of the individual, her self-esteem, position in society and the basis of objective perception by others. In this sense, the protection of reputation coincides with the protection of honor and dignity in the form in which it is provided by law (see for more details: Sergeev A.P. The right to protect reputation. L., 1989. P. 4), and together they serve as a necessary restriction of abuse of freedom of speech and mass media (paragraph 4 of the preamble, paragraph 1 of the Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 3). Therefore, the protection of honor and dignity simultaneously takes place with the protection of the name and inviolability of personal life (conditionally, this is called the protection of reputation in the broad sense).

2. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 152 The basis for the protection of honor, dignity, business reputation is the simultaneous presence of the following conditions: untrue information about facts that are discrediting, disseminated by a third party.

In theory, information about facts that do not correspond to reality is usually understood as factual judgments about the qualities and abilities of a person, his behavior, lifestyle, events that have occurred in life, to which the criteria of truth and falsity are applicable (i.e. there is the possibility of verification), for example, allegations that a person has committed an offense, has sadistic or masochistic tendencies, etc. Judicial practice has adopted a position according to which information contained in court decisions and sentences, decisions of preliminary investigation bodies and other procedural or other official documents cannot be considered as untrue, for appeal and contestation of which another judicial procedure established by law is provided (for example, not the information contained in the dismissal order can be refuted in accordance with Article 152 of the Civil Code, since such an order can only be challenged in the manner prescribed by the Labor Code) (paragraph 4, clause 7 of the Decree of the Supreme Court No. 3).

It is necessary to distinguish evaluative judgments from factual judgments, to which the criteria of truth (falsity) are not applicable, since such judgments express only the private opinion of a third person, his attitude to the subject of thought as a whole or to individual features (for example, the judgment that a person has a friendly (militant) ) view, etc.). Consequently, the statement of a value judgment cannot violate the honor, dignity and business reputation. Another thing is if such a value judgment is expressed in an indecent form (through profanity, etc.), if there are signs of a crime, honor and dignity can be protected by bringing to criminal liability for insult (Article 130 of the Criminal Code).

The doctrine singles out the so-called value judgments with factual reference, which contain statements in the form of an assessment (for example, an indication that a person is vile, unscrupulous, etc.). It is impossible to unequivocally answer whether the dissemination of such information should be considered a derogation of honor, dignity and business reputation. From the point of view of content, it is rather difficult to distinguish between mere value judgments and value judgments with factual reference, since the connection with facts is somehow inherent in any assessment of the qualities of the subject. If the information is not neutral in nature from the point of view of ethics and at the same time can be checked for compliance with reality, then only taking into account the specific circumstances in each case, as well as taking into account precisely the essence of the information, and not individual details protection of honor, dignity and goodwill seem to be admissible.

Discrediting information is recognized as information containing allegations of a violation by an individual (legal) person 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 economic and entrepreneurial activity, violation business ethics or business customs that detract from the honor and dignity of a citizen or the business reputation of a citizen or a legal entity (paragraph 5, clause 7 of Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 3). The concept of "damaging information" is evaluative in nature, so the above list can hardly be considered exhaustive. Any information containing negative information of a legal or moral nature should be considered discrediting (see also: Sergeev A.P. Decree. Op. P. 24 - 25). However, the problem of qualifying information as discrediting also does not have a universal solution. It is necessary to take into account all the specific circumstances of the case, including those related to the personality of both the injured person and the person who disseminated the information.

Art. 152 do not apply to cases of so-called defamation, i.e. dissemination of information corresponding to reality that discredits a person (for example, about the presence of a criminal record, venereal disease, etc.) or even not discrediting, but negatively characterizing, or simply unpleasant or undesirable for a particular person (in particular, disclosure of family secrets, information about physical shortcomings, etc.). In such situations, the legitimate interests of the victim are ensured by the rules on the protection of privacy, etc. (this approach has also been confirmed in judicial practice - see paragraphs 1, 2, paragraph 8 of the Decree of the Supreme Court No. 3).

The dissemination of untrue and defamatory information is usually understood as the publication of such information in the press, broadcast on radio and television, demonstration in newsreel programs and other media, on the Internet, as well as using other means of telecommunications, presentation in service characteristics, public speeches, 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 distribution if the person who reported this information has taken sufficient confidentiality measures (paragraph 2, clause 7 of the Decree of the Supreme Court No. 3).

The issue of dissemination of information is not always obvious. In particular, sometimes citizens apply to state (municipal) bodies with statements containing information (for example, about a crime committed or being prepared) that does not correspond to reality. In itself, such an appeal cannot serve as a basis for bringing the applicant to civil liability under Art. 152, unless it is established that the appeal to the authorities had no grounds and was dictated not by the intention to fulfill a civic duty, but solely by the desire to harm another person (clause 10 of the Decree of the Supreme Court No. 3).

Finally, the distribution of the above information must be carried out by a third party. In particular, this means that the dissemination of any information by a person about himself cannot be considered a circumstance that violates the conditions for the objectivity of the formation of an opinion about the corresponding person, which, last but not least, depends on his own behavior. From the meaning of Art. 152 it follows that this rule has exceptions. So, if a person disseminates defamatory information about himself as a result of physical and (or) mental violence exerted on him, then there is a diminution of honor, dignity and business reputation as a result of unlawful actions of another person, who should act as an obligated party on the demand for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation.

3. As follows from paragraphs 1, 7 of the commented article, the subjects of the right to protection are citizens and legal entities who believe that defamatory information that does not correspond to reality has been circulated about them. Protection of the interests of minors or incapacitated persons is carried out by their legal representatives.

At the request of interested persons (for example, relatives, heirs, etc.), the protection of the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen is allowed even after his death. Such a rule is justified, since the preservation of a good memory of a person is socially significant. In addition, the protection of the interests of the dead is inextricably linked with the protection of the interests of the living, in particular relatives and friends. Within the meaning of the law, the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity that has ceased to exist is allowed at the request of its successors.

In theory, it is rightly stated that collectives not endowed with the rights of a legal entity in the presence of organizational unity can also act as subjects of the corresponding right to protection (see for more details: Sergeev A.P. Decree. Op. P. 11 - 12). For example, a family can be called a kind of collective, any capable member of which can act in defense not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of the whole family as a whole (protection of family honor and reputation).

4. Persons who act as a source of information (traditionally they are called authors, although the terminology is not entirely successful) and persons who have disseminated relevant information are recognized as persons liable for the requirements for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation.

For example, depending on the specific circumstances, the indicated persons are: a) the author and the editorial staff of the relevant mass media, if the disputed information was disseminated in the mass media, indicating the person who is their source; b) the editorial staff of the mass media, i.е. organization, individual or group individuals those engaged in the production and release of a specific mass media (clause 9, article 2 of the Mass Media Law), as well as the founder if the editorial office does not have the status of a legal entity, if the name of the author is not indicated when publishing or otherwise distributing untrue defamatory information (paragraph 2, 3, paragraph 5 of the Decree of the Supreme Court No. 3); c) a legal entity (Article 1068 of the Civil Code), whose employee disseminated discrediting and untrue information in connection with the implementation professional activity on behalf of the organization in which he works (for example, in a job description) (paragraph 4, clause 5 of the Decree of the Supreme Court No. 3).

5. When making a claim for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, the burden of proof is distributed as follows. The victim must prove the fact of dissemination of information by the person to whom the demand is made, and their discrediting nature. The defendant, on the contrary, is obliged to substantiate the validity of the disseminated information (paragraph 1, clause 9 of the Decree of the Supreme Court No. 3).

The law may establish cases of exemption from liability for the dissemination of inaccurate defamatory information. Thus, liability does not arise if this information is present in mandatory messages; received from news agencies; are contained in response to a request for information or in the materials of the press services of state (municipal) bodies, organizations, institutions, enterprises, bodies public associations; are verbatim reproduction of fragments of speeches of deputies, delegates of congresses, conferences, plenums of public associations, as well as official speeches of officials of state (municipal) bodies, organizations and public associations; contained in author's works that are broadcast without prior recording, or in texts that are not subject to editing; are a verbatim reproduction of messages and materials or their fragments distributed by another mass media, which can be identified and held liable for this violation (Article 57 of the Mass Media Law). This list is closed and is not subject to broad interpretation. Therefore, for example, the reference to the fact that the publication is an advertising material cannot serve as a basis for exemption from liability (paragraph 1, clause 12 of the Decree of the Supreme Court No. 3).

According to paragraph 6 of the commented article, the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation is provided by law even if it is impossible to identify the person who disseminated false information (for example, when sending anonymous letters to citizens and organizations or disseminating information on the Internet by a person who cannot to identify). The victim has the right to apply to the court with an application for the recognition of such information as untrue in the order of special proceedings (paragraph 3, clause 2 of Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 3).

6. A special way to protect honor, dignity and business reputation is a refutation (clauses 2, 3 of the commented article). However, by its nature, it is a kind of such a general method of protection as the suppression of unlawful acts and the restoration of the situation that existed before the violation, and can be implemented within the framework of: information to the media of his response to the publication) or b) jurisdictional form of protection (in particular, by filing a lawsuit in court). When satisfying the claim, the court in the operative part of the decision is obliged to indicate the method and procedure for refuting discrediting information that does not correspond to reality and, if necessary, state the text of such a refutation, indicating which information is untrue and discrediting, when and how it was disseminated, and also determine the period , during which it must follow (paragraph 1, 2, paragraph 17 of the Decree of the Supreme Court No. 3).

If unreliable defamatory information was circulated in the media, they must be refuted in the same media, or when the release of the media in which the refuted information was circulated is terminated for the duration of the dispute, they must be refuted at the expense of the defendant in another mass media information (clause 13 of the Decree of the Supreme Court No. 3). If the specified information is contained in a document emanating from the organization, such a document is subject to replacement or revocation.

Apology as a way judicial protection honor, dignity and business reputation is not provided for by the Civil Code, therefore the court does not have the right to oblige the defendants in this category of cases to apologize to the plaintiffs in one form or another. However, the court may decide settlement agreement, according to which the parties, by mutual agreement, provided for the defendant to apologize in connection with the dissemination of untrue defamatory information regarding the plaintiff, since this does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of other persons and does not contradict the law (paragraph 2, 3, clause 18 of the Resolution BC No. 3).

Failure to comply with the court decision entails the imposition of a fine on the violator, which is collected in the income of the Russian Federation. At the same time, payment of the fine does not relieve the violator from the obligation to perform the refutation action provided for by the court decision (clause 4 of the commented article).

7. According to paragraph 5 of Art. 152 refutation of inaccurate discrediting information can be used along with other methods of protection, in particular, compensation for damages (see commentary to Article 15 of the Civil Code) and compensation for moral damage (see commentary to Article 151 of the Civil Code), which can be recovered only in in favor of the plaintiff, but not the persons indicated by him (paragraph 1, clause 18 of the Decree of the Supreme Court No. 3).

Currently judicial practice a rather controversial position has been taken on the possibility of compensation for moral damage to a legal entity in the event of a derogation from its business reputation. It is believed that since the rule on the possibility of demanding, along with the refutation of unreliable discrediting information, losses and moral damage in terms of the business reputation of a citizen, respectively, applies to the protection of the business reputation of legal entities (clause 7 of the commented article), to the extent that this rule is in full also applies in cases where such information is disseminated in relation to a legal entity (paragraph 1, clause 15 of Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 3). This position is not consistent with the legal definition of moral harm as physical and moral suffering (paragraph 1 of article 151 of the Civil Code), which can only be experienced by an individual, but not a legal entity, since the latter is an artificially created (fictitious) subject of law.

Be that as it may, if we allow the possibility of compensating a legal entity for other (apart from property) damage, it is necessary to talk about some other type of non-property damage than moral damage. In particular, in accordance with par. 5 p. 2 of the Definition of the Constitutional Court of December 4, 2003 N 508-O "On the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Shlafman V.A. about the violation of his constitutional rights by paragraph 7 of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation" (Bulletin of the COP. 2004. N 3) the applicability of a particular method of protecting violated civil rights to the protection of the business reputation of legal entities should be determined based on the nature of the legal entity. The absence of a direct indication in the law of the method of protecting the business reputation of legal entities does not deprive them of the right to make claims for compensation for losses, including intangible damage caused by detracting from business reputation, or intangible damage that has its own content (other than the content of moral harm caused to a citizen), which follows from the essence of the violated intangible right and the nature of the consequences of this violation.

The position of the Constitutional Court is quite reasonable and complies with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Art. 150 of the Civil Code, however, amendments to the current legislation are required for an unambiguous solution to this problem.

Judicial practice under Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Judgment of the ECtHR dated 20.06.2017

15. In her statement of claim, the applicant complained that the unlawful publication of her son's photograph in a pamphlet calling for the adoption of children had tarnished the honor, dignity and reputation of herself and her son. In particular, the photo was published without her knowledge and consent. The booklet was sent to various organizations in the city of Usolye and the Usolsky district of the Perm Territory (to libraries, hospitals, police stations) and caused a negative attitude towards her and her son from colleagues, neighbors and relatives. The surrounding people decided that she had abandoned her son. The boy became the object of ridicule in kindergarten. In addition, the publication of the photo affected her honor and dignity and her reputation as a school teacher. With reference to the articles and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (see section "Relevant legislation of the Russian Federation and law enforcement practice" of this Judgment), she asked the court to award her compensation for non-pecuniary damage and oblige the publishing house to apologize for publishing the photo.

Judgment of the ECtHR dated 25.04.2017

9. December 8, 2004 district court considered and partially satisfied the claim, referring to the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 11. He gave the following reasoning:

"... disputable information: "... [who] indecently quickly developed entrepreneurial activity, spitting on the charter of the partnership and a number of regional and federal laws" are subject to refutation [by the defendants] ... since, during the consideration of the case by the court, the defendants did not prove that T.'s actions were unlawful.

Judgment of the ECtHR dated 13.06.2017

The statement that a crime has been committed must be considered in the manner provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore N.’s statement cannot be recognized by the court as a value judgment or opinion, and [its authenticity] must be proved by presenting to the court criminal procedure documents confirming that in the actions of L.K. there was a crime. In violation of an article of the Civil Code, the defendant failed to present such documents to the court...

Judgment of the ECtHR dated 03.10.2017

The court cannot accept as grounds for dismissing the claim [for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation] the arguments of the defendants, according to which the disputed information is opinions, value judgments that are not subject to refutation in accordance with the article of the Civil Code, for the following reasons.

Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 02.02.2017 N 305-ES16-19703 in case N A41-102774 / 2015

When accepting the judicial acts disputed by the applicant, the courts were guided by the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 of Article , Article , , the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 9, 65, 66 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the explanations set out in paragraph 7 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 24, 2005 N "On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities", paragraphs 12, 13, 14 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/23/2015 N "On the application by the courts of certain provisions of Section I of Part of the first Civil Code of the Russian Federation", and proceeded from the plaintiff's failure to prove the totality of circumstances necessary to recover damages, as well as his failure to prove the fact of the loss of confidence in the reputation of the Jeanette company, the existence of a causal relationship between the defendant's actions and the emergence of any - any adverse consequences in the form of causes damage to business reputation.

Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 16, 2017 in case N 307-ES16-8149, A56-76223 / 2014

According to the provisions of the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, 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 (paragraph 1). 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 (clause 11).

Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 21, 2017 N 309-ES16-20840 in case N A47-4552 / 2015

According to the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - Civil Code) a legal entity has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting its honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true; if information discrediting the business reputation of a legal entity is disseminated in the mass media, they must be refuted in the same mass media.

Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 20, 2017 N 305-ES16-17606 in case N A41-947 / 2016

The courts also came to the conclusion that there is no information discrediting the plaintiff's business reputation in the disputed video recording, since it contains a subjective opinion (judgment) that does not belong to the category of facts that can be verified for compliance with their reality, and also, unlike the facts and events of objective reality, they cannot correspond or not correspond to reality and, as a result, be refuted in the manner prescribed by the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 16, 2017 N 305-ES16-19287 in case N A41-80449/15

According to an article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a legal entity has the right to demand in court that information discrediting its business reputation be refuted if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true.

Having assessed, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 7 of the Code, the evidence presented by the parties, in their totality and interconnection, based on the actual circumstances of the case, guided by the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal law dated 05/02/2006 N 59-FZ "On the procedure for considering applications from citizens of the Russian Federation", the Federal Law "On central bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia)" dated July 10, 2002 N 86-FZ, articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the legal position set out in the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 24, 2005 N "On judicial practice in cases of protection of honor and dignity citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities", based on the fact that the appeal of Kaznacheeva V.V. to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, in fact, is the implementation by the defendant of the right to send appeals to government bodies who, within their competence, are obliged to consider these appeals, make decisions on them and give a reasoned answer in fixed time, the courts came to the conclusion that there is no set of elements provided for in the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which excludes the possibility of satisfying a claim for the protection of business reputation.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 28, 2017 N 418-O

In his complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, L.M. Kopylova asks to check the provisions of the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in their interpretation by the courts for compliance with articles 29, 33, 41 and 45 (part 1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, believing that her appeal to state bodies was aimed at protecting life and health, is not a dissemination of information about the actions of the doctor, does not contain insults (obscene language) and did not damage the business reputation of Ch. as a doctor.

Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 29, 2017 N 305-ES17-2358 in case N A40-198558 / 2015

In accepting the judicial acts disputed by the applicant, the courts were guided by the provisions of articles , , , , of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, articles 9, 65, 66 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the explanations set out in paragraph 7 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 24.02.2005 N "O judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities", and proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the totality of the circumstances necessary for the recovery of damages, as well as the fact that the company disseminated information discrediting the business reputation of the plaintiff.

1. Life and health, personal dignity, personal integrity, honor and good name, business reputation, privacy, personal and family secrets, the right of free movement, choice of place of stay and residence, the right to a name, the right of authorship, other personal non-property rights and other intangible benefits that belong to a citizen from birth or by virtue of law are inalienable and non-transferable in any other way. In cases and in the manner prescribed by law, personal non-property rights and other intangible benefits that belonged to the deceased may be exercised and protected by other persons, including the heirs of the right holder.

2. intangible benefits are protected in accordance with this Code and other laws in the cases and in the manner prescribed by them, as well as in those cases and to the extent that the use of methods for protecting civil rights () follows from the essence of the violated non-material right and the nature of the consequences of this violation.

Article 151. Compensation for moral damage

If a citizen has suffered moral harm (physical or moral suffering) by actions that violate his personal non-property rights or encroach on other non-material benefits belonging to the citizen, as well as in other cases provided for by law, the court may impose on the violator the duty monetary compensation said harm.

When determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the court takes into account the degree of guilt of the offender and other noteworthy circumstances. The court must also take into account the degree of physical and mental suffering associated with the individual characteristics of the person harmed.

Article 152. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation

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

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

3. A citizen in respect of whom the media have published information that infringes on his rights or interests protected by law, has the right to publish his response in the same media.

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

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

6. 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.

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

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.

Return to document table of contents: Civil Code of the Russian Federation Part 1 in the current edition

Comments on Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, judicial practice of application

Clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation:

defamatory information

Discrediting, in particular, are information containing allegations of a violation by a citizen or legal entity of the current legislation, committing a dishonest act, incorrect, unethical behavior in personal, public or political life, bad faith in the implementation of production, economic and entrepreneurial activities, violation of business ethics or customs business transactions that detract from the honor and dignity of a citizen or the business reputation of a citizen or a legal entity.

What is meant by dissemination of defamatory information?

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 media, distribution on the Internet, as well as using other means of telecommunications, presentation in official characteristics, public speeches, 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.

Circumstances under which the claim is subject to satisfaction

In cases of this category, it must be borne in mind that the circumstances that, by virtue of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, are important for the case, which must be determined by the judge when accepting the statement of claim and preparing the case for trial, as well as during the trial, are: dissemination by the defendant of information about the plaintiff, discrediting the nature of this information and its inconsistency with reality. In the absence of at least one of these circumstances, the claim cannot be satisfied by the court.

Review of the practice of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation 2016:

Claims for compensation for harm, including compensation for moral damage, see section "