Publication date: 21.05.2024
KCS VS: APOLOGIES FOR DISTRIBUTION OF UNTRUE INFORMATION IS NOT A WAY OF PROTECTING DIGNITY, HONOR OR BUSINESS REPUTATION
The court does not have the right to oblige the defendant to apologize to the plaintiff in one form or another, since forced apology as a way of judicial protection of dignity, honor or business reputation is not provided for by law.
This was emphasized by the Civil Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court in the decision dated March 13, 2024 in case No. 712/10999/22.
According to the circumstances of the case
The plaintiff noted that the defendant posted in an open group on Facebook a post with frankly inaccurate and negative information about him, and offensive defamatory comments were placed under the post. The disseminated information became known to a wide range of people and negatively affected the plaintiff's business and public reputation.
He asked the court to recognize the disseminated information as unreliable, untrue and demeaning honor, dignity, and business reputation; oblige the defendant to publicly apologize and refute the information spread in the relevant Facebook group; to collect UAH 60,000 in moral damages from him.
The district court, whose decision was upheld by the appellate court, partially satisfied the claim. The court found the information unreliable and humiliating; obliged the defendant to refute it by placing a message in the relevant group on Facebook that the defendant publicly apologizes to the plaintiff and asks to consider the spread information unreliable; collected UAH 20,000 in moral damages from the defendant.The appellate court also noted that the defendant, spreading inaccurate information about the plaintiff, used words of objectively offensive content, which in terms of semantic meaning cannot be classified as those used in the language acceptable for communication in society, therefore, they should be considered evaluative judgments, which the complainant in the submitted appellate complaint unfoundedly notes, there are no grounds.
The position of the Supreme
The CCS of the Supreme Court annulled the decision, refused to satisfy the claim in terms of the claims for recognition of false information and refutation of widespread information, and charged the defendant with moral damages in the amount of UAH 10,000 for insulting statements.
The Supreme Court made the following legal conclusions:
from the context of all the information disseminated about the plaintiff, it is clear that it did not contain undisputed statements about reliable factual data, but was based on information that contained evaluative judgments and referred to criticism of the person and actions of the plaintiff;
in accordance with Article 277 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, evaluative judgments are not subject to judicial protection. The court should distinguish between facts and value judgments. The existence of facts can be proven, but the truthfulness of evaluative judgments cannot. As for evaluative judgments, this requirement cannot be fulfilled, and it is also a violation of the very freedom of opinion, which is the main component of the right guaranteed by Art. 10 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case "Lingens v. Austria");
the defendant did not disseminate information about the fact, and the information contested by the plaintiff is, in fact, an evaluation judgment of the defendant, which, in turn, contains offensive statements about the plaintiff.At the same time, thoughts that are expressed by means of language, in particular the use of hyperbole, allegories, satire, and are brutal in form cannot be refuted.
If a subjective opinion is expressed in a brutal, humiliating or obscene manner that degrades dignity, honor or business reputation, the person who expressed the opinion or assessment in such and such a manner may be charged with the obligation to compensate for the moral damage caused.You may be interested in the following articles: Analysis, consultation, evaluation. legal analysis of the situation, lawyer's consultation, lawyer's consultation, analysis of documents, legal analysis of the situation, written consultation, verification of documents by a lawyer, lawyers' documents, lawyer's help online, lawyer online, legal opinion, legal opinion of a lawyer, lawyer online.
The Central Committee of the Supreme Court pointed out the fallacy of the conclusions of the courts on the refutation of unreliable information by posting a public apology on the group's Facebook page.
In this context, the Central Committee of the Supreme Court emphasized that part 1 of Article 34 of the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees everyone the right to freedom of thought and speech, to the free expression of their views and beliefs. The court does not have the right to oblige the defendant to apologize to the plaintiff in one form or another, since a forced apology as a way of judicial protection of dignity, honor or business reputation for spreading false information is not provided for in Articles 16, 277 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
The above is consistent with the precedent practice of the European Court of Human Rights in the decision of May 25, 2011 (application No. 33014/05) in the case "Editorial of the newspaper "Pravovoye dyelo" and Shtekel v. Ukraine."
