| The Supreme Court requires not to forget about freedom of speech when considering cases of protection of business honor In the new year, the Russian press will receive a serious tool in the fight against offended officials and businessmen who are trying to recover compensation from the media for damage allegedly caused to their business reputation. In the next two months, the plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is going to adopt a resolution with recommendations for lower courts to consider cases of protection of honor and dignity. This was stated the other day by the Chairman of the Supreme Council, Vyacheslav Lebedev, who noted that in the time that had passed since the publication of the previous clarification (resolution of the plenum of the Supreme Court in 1994), “a lot has changed.”
The draft of the new resolution has already been developed by the scientific advisory council under the Supreme Court, and journalists are in for a pleasant surprise. The vast majority of lawyers who have been able to review this document believe that it is a significant improvement over previous clarifications of the high courts. In particular, according to experts, from now on Russian courts, when considering cases of protection of business honor, will treat freedom of speech with great respect. “This is progress towards bringing Russian judicial practice into line with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights,” Mikhail Fedotov, secretary of the Union of Journalists, told a Vremya Novostey correspondent. “The draft, for example, even says that the court cannot oblige the media Along with refuting the information, also apologize.”
According to lawyer Konstantin Sklovsky, several fundamental positions can be identified in the project currently being discussed. Firstly, this is a requirement to fine the media only for disseminating false facts that discredit honor and dignity, but not for the opinion expressed by the author. Secondly, the demand for greater respect for the professional interests of the media. “The European Court of Human Rights recognizes that public figures and structures in some cases may be subject to wider criticism and even exaggerations may be made against them,” Mr. Sklovsky explained to a Vremya Novostey correspondent. “Until now, Russian the courts decided very simply: damage caused by the publication - compensate. And the draft resolution of the Supreme Court says that it is necessary to evaluate the context of the publication, its purpose, to find out whether the principles of freedom of speech will be violated. It is necessary to take into account the public interest for the sake of which the journalist did this. dissemination of certain information."
It is equally important that the Supreme Court proposes to deprive arbitration courts of the “exclusive” right to consider disputes about business reputation, giving the right to deal with such cases between non-profit organizations, individuals and the media to courts of general jurisdiction. The project states that not only entrepreneurs and commercial organizations have a business reputation. At the same time, having referred to its competence disputes about damage to business reputation, the Supreme Court is not going to evaluate the damage caused to it in monetary terms, as arbitrators do. “The Supreme Court has not spoken out directly on this issue, and this silence is very eloquent,” says Mr. Sklovsky. -- It means that the Supreme Court does not recognize the possibility of compensation for damage to reputation. It is possible to compensate for losses incurred in connection with publication. But how, for example, can we evaluate in monetary terms whether Alfa Bank’s reputation has worsened or improved after its publication in the newspaper?” Let us recall that in court Alfa Bank managed to prove that losses from the publication in July amounted to about 20 million rubles, while the lion's share of the judgment was 300 million rubles. -- constitutes precisely “compensation for reputational damage.”
However, in addition to nods to the press, the draft resolution of the Supreme Court also contains a direct warning for fans of black PR. In particular, the document states that the right to defense remains even if it is impossible to identify the person who disseminated the defamatory information. This means that any publication will be forced to answer for anonymous materials. First of all, this will affect online information portals that have forums with open access for their readers. And by the way, there have already been such precedents in Russia. Thus, the arbitration court, following a claim by Troika Steel, ordered Megasoft LLC to pay compensation and publish a refutation of the information posted on the MetalTorg.Ru website on the Black List forum. Yuri KOLESOV |
|
