In all four parts of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the business reputation of a legal entity is mentioned only three times. One of these references is in the first part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which indicates that the rules on protecting the business reputation of a citizen, provided for in Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, respectively, apply to the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity. The second mention refers to a commercial concession agreement (clause 2 of article 1027 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), and the third - to a simple partnership (clause 1 of article 1042 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Based on these provisions, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1) business reputation of a legal entity is an intangible benefit;
2) the business reputation of a legal entity, in contrast to the business reputation of a citizen, has the sign of transferability (clause 2, article 1027 and clause 1, article 1042 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);
3) the methods of protecting the business reputation of a legal entity and a citizen are identical.
In addition, business reputation has a sign of alienability, but only in the field of entrepreneurship. The alienation of business reputation occurs together with the alienation of the enterprise as a property complex. The transfer of business reputation in this case is possible, since the enterprise includes a commercial designation. The alienation of business reputation is also carried out together with the alienation of a trademark. Thus, the alienation of business reputation is carried out together with a means of individualization of legal entities, goods, works, services and enterprises.
The business reputation of a legal entity, among other things, can be assessed. The cost of a positive business reputation in accordance with Section VIII "Goodwill" of the Accounting Regulation "Accounting for Intangible Assets", approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2007 N 153n, is equal to the premium on the price paid by the buyer in anticipation of future economic benefits in connection with acquired non-identifiable assets.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation drew attention to the special importance of business reputation for a legal entity in Resolution No. 3 of February 24, 2005 "On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities" (hereinafter - the Resolution of the Supreme Court RF N 3). The court pointed out that the business reputation of legal entities is one of the conditions for their successful activities. Also, the special importance of business reputation for a legal entity is enshrined at the legislative level. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in Art. 3.1 establishes a rule according to which an administrative penalty cannot be aimed at damaging the business reputation of a legal entity. In accordance with Art. 14 of the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition" establishes a ban on unfair competition in the form of dissemination of false, inaccurate or distorted information that can cause losses to an economic entity or damage its business reputation.
Thus, the business reputation of a legal entity is an intangible asset that has a direct impact on the activities of this entity. A positive business reputation helps to attract new customers, a negative one can be a formidable barrier between the organization and its potential counterparties.
It should be noted right away that Article 33 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establishes a special jurisdiction of cases to arbitration courts in cases of protecting business reputation in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities. Part 2 of Article 33 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation states that special jurisdiction in these cases is established regardless of the subject composition of the legal relationship from which the dispute arose. If a dispute on the protection of business reputation arises in an area not related to entrepreneurial and other economic activities, then, regardless of the subject composition, such a dispute will be subordinate to a court of general jurisdiction (clause 3 of Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3).
Analysis of paragraph 1 and paragraph 7 of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allows us to conclude that a legal entity has the right to apply for judicial protection of business reputation if three circumstances take place in the aggregate: the fact of dissemination of information about a legal entity that discredits the nature of this information and its inconsistency with reality.
Decree of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 3 reveals the content of these concepts.
The dissemination of information is understood quite broadly. Distribution can be carried out, for example, in the press, on radio and television, on the Internet, in public speeches, statements addressed to officials, oral communication.
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.
Discrediting, in particular, includes information containing allegations of a violation by a legal entity of the current legislation, bad faith in the implementation of production, economic and entrepreneurial activities, violation of business ethics or business practices that detract from the business reputation of a legal entity.
In addition, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the said Resolution draws the attention of the courts to the fact that it is necessary to distinguish between statements of facts that can be verified, and value judgments, opinions, beliefs that are not the subject of judicial protection in accordance with Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since, being an expression of the subjective opinion and views of a particular person, they cannot be verified for compliance with their reality.
If the dissemination of information discrediting business reputation occurred in the media, then the legal entity has the right to demand a refutation of this information in the same media. If the information is contained in a document emanating from the organization, then the legal entity has the right to demand the replacement or cancellation of this document.
Ill-wishers can disseminate information that infringes on the rights or legally protected interests of a legal entity, but does not bear a discrediting character. In this case, paragraph 3 of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides a legal entity with the right to publish its response in the same media in which the publication was made.
A legal entity, being a participant in a business transaction, may incur losses that will be caused by the dissemination of discrediting information about it. In these cases, the legislator, in addition to the possibility of refuting such information, grants the legal entity the right to demand compensation for losses, which means real damage and lost profits.
When recovering damages, a legal entity may encounter some difficulties and, to a certain extent, injustice. Difficulties lie in the recovery of lost profits, which in practice, even in the case of relations sealed by an agreement, causes great difficulties. The injustice lies in the fact that even if real damages and lost profits are compensated to a legal entity, they may not cover all losses, since the impact of a media message containing defamatory information can stretch for a long time. If the dissemination of information took place in print media, then over time their relevance will fade, but this information can be available on the Internet without any restrictions.
When discrediting information about a citizen is disseminated, the issue of "injustice" is resolved with the help of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The Civil Code understands moral harm as physical or moral suffering that a legal entity as an artificial entity cannot experience. Accordingly, a legal entity is not entitled to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage. This conclusion is confirmed in judicial practice (Resolution of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of August 5, 1997 N 1509/97; Resolution of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 1998 N 1785/97; Resolution of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of December 1, 1998 N 813/98) .
On the other hand, since 2003, there has been a certain trend in judicial practice aimed at satisfying the claims of legal entities for compensation for moral damage caused by detracting from business reputation. The turning point was 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 Sh. about the violation of his constitutional rights by paragraph 7 of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter - the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation N 508-O). This Definition contains a number of provisions that have expanded the possibilities for protecting the civil rights of legal entities:
- the applicability of a particular method of protecting violated civil rights to protecting 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 ).
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its Ruling referred to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights of April 6, 2000 in the case of "Company v. Portugal". In this decision, the European Court indicated that the court could not exclude the possibility of awarding compensation to a commercial company for non-pecuniary damages.
It should be noted that the term "intangible damages" is not characteristic of Russian legislation, since, in accordance with Art. 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, losses are always material. On the other hand, this term reflects the specifics of the harm caused to a legal entity.
In this regard, the litigation between OJSC and CJSC is very indicative (case No. A40-40374 / 04-89-467). The reason for the trial was the publication in the newspaper "K" of an article discrediting, in the opinion of the OJSC, its business reputation. It is worth noting that the Moscow Arbitration Court, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal and the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District spoke favorably on the issue of recovering reputational (non-material) damage caused to a legal entity by diminishing its business reputation.
The Moscow Arbitration Court, satisfying the claim for the recovery of reputational (non-material) damage, indicated that the damage to the reputation of the OJSC was expressed in the loss of confidence in the bank on the part of its customers, which resulted in a significant outflow of funds from the bank. The court also agreed with the OJSC's argument that the measure of derogation of goodwill is the amount of reduction in the volume of the deposit base.
In another litigation, a legal entity also filed a claim for the recovery of reputational damage (case No. A32-6861 / 2008-16 / 114). In this case, the Arbitration Court of the Krasnodar Territory, by its decision of 22.08.2008, and the Fifteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal, by its Resolution of 08.12.2008, refused to recover reputational damage. The cassation instance referred the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, which, by its decision of 07.07.2009, satisfied this requirement. 15 AAS overturned the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recovery of reputational damage. At the same time, 15 AAS indicated that, firstly, only a citizen can experience moral or physical suffering, and, secondly, Art. 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws do not provide for such a method of protection as the recovery of reputational damage. Looking ahead, it should be said that the court of cassation recognized the right of a legal entity to recover reputational damage (Resolution of the FAS SKO dated February 5, 2010 in case N A32-6861 / 2008-16 / 114). Subsequently, this case reached the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, which left the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Krasnodar Territory dated July 7, 2009 and the Decree of the FAS SKO dated February 5, 2010 in force, thereby indirectly confirming the right of a legal entity to compensation for moral damage (Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 2, 2010 N BAC-6424/10).
Argument 15 of the AAC in case N A32-6861 / 2008-16 / 114 that federal law does not provide for such a method of protection as the recovery of reputational damage can be countered by the following arguments of 9 AAC in case N A40-40374 / 04-89-467 .
9 AAC pointed out that Art. 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation contains such a method of protection as compensation for moral damage, and also provides for the possibility at the level of federal legislation to establish other methods of protection. In the development of this norm, paragraph 5 of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation indicates the possibility for a citizen to demand, in addition to the refutation of information and compensation for losses, also compensation for moral damage caused by the derogation of his business reputation. And paragraph 7 of the same article indicates that these rules apply to the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity. In addition, 9 AAC referred to the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation N 508-O that the applicability of a particular method of protecting the business reputation of a legal entity should be decided taking into account the nature of the legal entity. Thus, 9 AAC actually concluded that such a method of protection as the recovery of reputational damage is contained in the legislation, however, under a different name - "compensation for moral damage." In other words, compensation for moral damage means the recovery of reputational damage (the legal nature of the legal entity is taken into account).
The possibility of recovering reputational damage is provided for in the already mentioned Decree of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 3. Of the recently considered litigation, which indicates the possibility of recovering reputational damage, one can single out the Resolution of the Eighth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 02.11.2009 in case N A75-3887 / 2009 .
The contradictory judicial practice that develops when compensating moral damage to a legal entity is partly due to the paucity of legal regulation of this issue of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. It should be borne in mind that the first part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was adopted in 1994, when market relations in our country were in their infancy. At that time, the developers of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation hardly assumed that business reputation for a legal entity would be of the utmost importance. Market relations gradually developed, and over time, there was an urgent need for a detailed development of the issue of protecting the business reputation of a legal entity.
The protection of the business reputation of a legal entity can also be carried out in the framework of criminal proceedings. Yes, Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provides that in the event of damage to business reputation by a crime, a legal entity may be recognized as a victim. To do this, it is necessary to establish the fact of committing a socially dangerous act and the fact of causing harm to the business reputation of a legal entity. Crimes that can harm the business reputation of a legal entity, for example, are the illegal use of a trademark (Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), illegal receipt and disclosure of information constituting a commercial, tax or banking secret (Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In order to protect business reputation, a legal entity has the right to file a claim for compensation for property damage, if there is reason to believe that this damage was caused to it directly by a crime (Article 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). Article 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation contains a provision that a civil plaintiff may bring a civil claim for property compensation for moral damage. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by derogation of the business reputation of a legal entity may take place within the framework of civil proceedings, which is confirmed by judicial practice. A similar conclusion regarding criminal proceedings cannot be drawn at the moment.
When damage to business reputation arises, extra-contractual obligations to compensate for it arise, which should be regulated by Chapter 59 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. On the other hand, Art. 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which is of a general nature when regulating obligations to compensate for harm, says the following: "The harm caused to the person or property of a citizen, as well as the harm caused to the property of a legal entity, is subject to compensation in full by the person who caused the harm." From the content of this wording, we can conclude that either the business reputation of a legal entity relates to property, or when harm is caused, non-contractual relations do not arise. Since paragraph 7 of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is located in Chapter 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which is called "Intangible Benefits and Their Protection", then the assumption that business reputation relates to property has no grounds. In addition, the content of Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation: "A victim is recognized ... as well as a legal entity in the event of a crime causing damage to its property and business reputation." Thus, we can conclude that at the time of the adoption of the first and second parts of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the business reputation of a legal entity was not of particular interest to participants in business transactions. And this, in turn, was the reason for the almost complete absence of regulatory regulation of such an important attribute for a legal entity.
It is also worth paying attention to Art. 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which indicates: "If a citizen has suffered moral harm (physical or moral suffering) ...". Does this not lead to the conclusion that physical or moral suffering is a moral harm specifically for a citizen? In the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 20, 1994 N 10 "Some questions of the application of legislation on compensation for moral damage" moral damage is also correlated with physical or moral suffering. Accordingly, moral harm to a legal entity is expressed not in physical or moral suffering, but in possible deprivations in the future. Only in relation to a legal entity, moral damage has a different name - "reputational damage".
At the moment, the information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of September 23, 1999 N 46 "Review of the practice of resolving disputes related to the protection of business reputation" by arbitration courts remains valid. This document covers a small number of topics. In addition, 11 years have passed since its adoption, and given the constantly changing jurisprudence, the letter needs to be updated. The introduction of amendments to it or the adoption of a new clarifying judicial act by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation will contribute to the removal of inconsistencies in the issue of compensation for moral (reputational) damage to a legal entity caused by the belittling of its business reputation.
Business reputation, being the "package" of a legal entity, is the object of increased attention. The paucity of legal regulation of the business reputation of a legal entity forced entrepreneurs to look for the most suitable ways to protect it. As a result, over time, such a method of protection as the recovery of reputational damage began to acquire an independent character. Given the fact that judicial practice reflects the trends of social relations, and they are characterized by constant development, we should expect further improvement in ways to protect the business reputation of a legal entity.

Every person who is a citizen of Russia has the right to protection of honor and his good name. These words are spelled out by the letter of the law in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and, therefore, are sacredly and unconditionally executed by law enforcement, supervisory and judicial authorities of the country and are taken into account in federal laws and by-laws. However, in practice, the protection of the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen becomes a more complex process than the high-flown maxims of the fundamental law of the Russian Federation.

The business reputation of an individual is a combination of personal and professional characteristics of a person, the prevailing opinion about the subject of civil law relations. According to Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, along with business reputation, the law also protects the honor and dignity of its citizens. Honor should be understood as a set of moral, moral and spiritual qualities of a person, and dignity - a person's conscious perception of his own value. Infringement of any of the above intangible rights is strictly punishable by law.

How is damage to honor and dignity determined?

Violation of a citizen's right to honor, dignity and business reputation takes place if the reliability of this information is affected. The dissemination by a certain person of information discrediting you in various ways serves as a sufficient basis for your appeal to the judicial system with the subsequent restoration of the lost right.

According to Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in the framework of the civil process in this trial, the burden of proving that the disseminated information is reliable will entirely lie with the subject who deliberately launched it into free access. A citizen whose business reputation has been hurt does not need to prove the unreliability of the disclosed information.

How to restore business reputation?

Among the ways to protect honor, dignity and business reputation in civil law, the following methods are used:

• refutation of the stated information;
• recovery from the proper defendant of compensation for the moral damage that was caused to the citizen.

Refutation of false information is possible in several forms, depending on the way in which the defamatory information was disseminated. However, regardless of the method, the refutation must be carried out publicly. In particular, the dissemination of information in the media is subject to refutation in the same sources, indicating the opinion of the person whose rights were violated. On the Internet, false information is subject to blocking and removal from all available sources. Documentation containing false information is subject to recall and withdrawal from the document flow of the organization or structural unit.

How to evaluate the business reputation of an individual?

When applying with a well-written statement of claim to the Magistrate's Court demanding the recovery of compensation for moral damage, you need to be prepared for the fact that it is you who will have to prove your suffering and justify the required amount of compensation. The legislation does not establish either a limitation period or the maximum amount of compensation to be collected in respect of infringement on honor and dignity. Compensation is always in the form of money.

Among the main criteria for non-pecuniary damage, Art. 1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation indicates:

• degree of guilt of the offender;
• the nature of the resulting physical and moral suffering of the victim;
• justice and reasonableness;
• individual characteristics of the personality of the victim and the circumstances of the harm.

Based on the practice of the courts, the amount of compensation to be recovered, as a rule, corresponds to that indicated in the application, provided that it complies with the principles of reasonableness. However, it will be necessary to answer a number of questions to the court regarding the moral suffering that has arisen, and also, if possible, to confirm them with documents.

Criminal and administrative ways to protect lost business reputation

In addition to civil law norms that protect the business reputation of a citizen, it is also possible to apply in this situation to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Violation of honor and dignity in criminal law is called slander and is regulated by Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As a punishment for such a crime, the courts use the use of fines and compulsory work in relation to the convict. It is also convenient that it is possible to recover non-pecuniary damage and obtain an order for refutation within the framework of one criminal process, if these requirements are indicated when filing an application with the court. And even despite the seeming insignificance of the punishment, one should not forget that malicious evasion from the execution of punishment can lead the convicted person to review it for a real term of imprisonment. Insult in the framework of administrative proceedings is regulated by Art. 5.61 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and is punishable by an insignificant fine.

The right to use business reputation enables a citizen to protect his honor and dignity from an unlawful attempt on his good name, protect his personality from slander and insult and bring the perpetrator to justice with all the strictness of the current legislation.

Organizations, unlike individuals, cannot claim compensation for moral harm when disseminating information that discredits their business reputation (). However, this does not exclude the possibility of claiming compensation for the damage caused by such actions. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation told in which case legal entities can count on receiving compensation for belittling their business reputation (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on February 16, 2017).

On April 17, 2014, on the website of the publication, the founder of which is "M", an article was published containing information that the administration of the University violates, which guarantees freedom of speech to citizens.

Since this publication disseminated untrue information, the University's business reputation was damaged, which he estimated at 1 million rubles. However, the company "M" refused to compensate him.

Therefore, the University filed a lawsuit and asked to recognize the information published on the site as untrue and discrediting business reputation, to oblige the company to remove the article from the site and place the text of the refutation on the main page, and also to recover 1 million rubles from M. as compensation for harm. The plaintiff confirmed the fact of posting this article on the website by the protocol of examination of evidence dated May 5, 2015, drawn up by a notary.

To draw up a statement of claim for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, use "Designer of legal documents " Internet version of the GARANT system. Get free access for 3 days!

The court of first instance partially satisfied the stated requirements - it agreed that the article defames the business reputation of the University, and ordered the defendant to remove it by posting the text of the refutation on the main page in the public domain. But the court did not seek compensation for harm (decision of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region dated November 11, 2015 in case No. A56-58502 / 2015). Referring to, he explained his position by saying that the harm caused to a legal entity is of a property nature, which excludes the possibility of awarding non-property damage to a legal entity, in whatever form it may be expressed. However, the court found that the plaintiff would have been entitled to damages if it confirmed that the dissemination of information led to property losses in the amount indicated.

The university did not agree with this and appealed the decision in an appeal, which canceled the act of the lower court and recovered 1 million rubles in favor of the plaintiff. compensation for harm (). A legal entity whose right to business reputation has been violated, according to the court, has the right to demand compensation for non-pecuniary damage to it if the general conditions of tort liability are proved (the presence of an illegal act on the part of the defendant, adverse consequences of these actions for the plaintiff and a causal relationship between this). The court also noted that Society "M":

• disseminated information that does not correspond to reality and discredits the business reputation of the University;
• placed this information on the Internet, as a result of which an indefinite and unlimited number of users received free access to it.

Thus, the information discrediting the plaintiff received an unlimited degree of dissemination. And, therefore, the claimed amount of compensation for harm is quite justified.

Company "M" did not agree with the obligation to pay damages to the plaintiff and filed a complaint with the cassation, which canceled the appeal ruling, leaving the decision of the court of first instance () in force.

The university, the court explained, during the consideration of the case did not provide evidence that after the publication of the controversial article, the demand of consumers for the services provided to them decreased or other negative consequences occurred for it.

The final point in this dispute was put by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation ().

The court noted that despite the fact that it excludes the possibility of compensating a legal entity for moral damage in the event of a derogation from its business reputation, this does not prevent it from filing claims for compensation for damage caused to its reputation ().

At the same time, damage caused to business reputation should be understood as any derogation of it, which manifests itself, for example, in the presence of losses for a legal entity due to the dissemination of defamatory information and other adverse consequences in the form of a loss of competitiveness, the impossibility of planning activities, etc.

However, the mere fact of dissemination by the defendant of information discrediting the business reputation of the plaintiff is not enough to conclude that the business reputation has been damaged and to pay monetary compensation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation added. The claimant must prove:

• the presence of a well-formed reputation in a particular area of ​​business relations (industry, business, services, education, etc.);
• the onset of adverse consequences for him as a result of the dissemination of discrediting information;
• the fact of loss or reduction of confidence in his reputation.

The university, in turn, referred to the provision by the company "M" of free access to information discrediting the plaintiff to an indefinite and unlimited number of users. But he did not provide any evidence of his reputation, formed before the publication of the contested article on the website, nor evidence to establish the existence of adverse consequences for him as a result of such publication.

The absence of such evidence, the Court explained, firstly, makes it difficult to conclude that a court decision to refute discrediting information is not enough to restore the balance of rights of participants in disputed legal relations. And secondly, it does not allow determining the amount of fair compensation.

With this in mind, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized the refusal of the cassation to recover compensation from the defendant for the dissemination of information discrediting the university's business reputation as justified and left the plaintiff's complaint unsatisfied.

Dmitry, good afternoon! Libel (as a criminal offense) is unlikely here, but a civil suit for the protection of business reputation on the basis of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation may well be

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

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.
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, established by the court.
8.If you set the face dissemination of information that discredits the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen is impossible, the citizen in respect of whom such information is disseminated has the right to apply to the court for recognition of the disseminated information as untrue.
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 such information in the relevant 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, are accordingly applied to the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity.

Was the lawyer's answer helpful? + 0 - 0

Collapse