On lawsuits against journalists

Vladimir journalist Yevgeny Sautin was forced to leave Russia after searches in a fabricated criminal case of anti -war graffiti. Prior to this, he studied at the Law Institute of Vladimir State University and, in particular, investigated the issues of civil legal personality of the media.

Due to the persecution and emigration, the young man could not complete his studies at the university and protect his term paper . As a sign of support, we decided to publish excerpts from it.

Basic lawsuits

The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees freedom of the media. Everyone has the right to freely search, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information in any legal way. In the Russian Federation, censorship is prohibited and freedom of speech is guaranteed (Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). Similar guarantees are provided for by ratified norms of international law: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the General Assembly of the UN (Article 19); International Pact on Civil and Political Rights (Article 18).

At the same time, freedom of speech and information, the right of each person to search, receive and disseminate information by any means cannot be absolute. Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation allows the state to limit the rights and freedoms of man and citizen by adopting federal laws, but only to the extent that it is necessary to protect the foundations of the constitutional system, the rights and legitimate interests of others, the security of the state, and so on. The possibility of restricting freedom of speech and the mass media is also provided for in Art. 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 19 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The proportionality and validity of such a restriction on the part of the Russian law enforcer raises questions among scientists.

The Law of the Russian Federation “On Mass Media” establishes a ban on the abuse of freedom of the mass media. When applying the legislation governing the issues of freedom of speech and freedom of the media, the courts need to ensure the balance between the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, on the one hand, and other rights and freedoms of a person and citizen, as well as values ​​protected by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, on the other (para. 5, para. 6 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 15, 2010 No. 16).

The current Russian legislation provides for the possibility of attracting the founder, editorial office, publisher, distributor, journalist, author of common messages and materials to legal liability (Article 56 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Media”). At the same time, a list of types of such responsibility is open (Article 59 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Media”). At the same time, “officially” in itself the media cannot have any rights and obligations and, accordingly, cannot be a subject of legal relations and a person who is entitled to participate in the case (paragraph 5 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 15, 2010 No. 16).

Features of civil liability of the media

The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees both individuals and legal entities the right to protect honor, dignity and business reputation (Article 21). Among the methods of legal protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, the legislator provides for the possibility of bringing the perpetrator to civil liability, which includes such types of sanctions as the recovery of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, losses incurred, deleting false defamatory information and the obligation to publish refutation (Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

As follows from the content of the official acts of judicial interpretation, the information that does not correspond to reality is allegations of facts or events that have not taken place in reality during which the contested information includes. At the same time, the information contained in court decisions and sentences, decisions of the preliminary investigation and other procedural or other official documents that are not relevant in court decisions cannot be considered, for the appeal and contest of which other judicial procedure established by laws.

Developing are information containing allegations of violation by a citizen or legal entity of the current legislation, the commission of a dishonest act, incorrect, unethical behavior in personal, public or political life, dishonesty in the implementation of industrial, business and entrepreneurial activity, violation of business ethics or customs of business turnover, which intersecting the honor and dignity of a citizen or business reputation of legal entity (paragraph 7 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of July 24, 2005 No. 3).

It is important to note that when considering cases of protecting honor, dignity and business reputation, the courts are obliged to distinguish between allegations of facts, the conformity of the reality of which can be verified, and evaluative judgments, opinions, beliefs, which are not the subject of judicial protection in accordance with Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since, being an expression of the subjective opinion and views of the defendant, they cannot be verified for their compliance with their reality.

At the same time, the limits of permissible criticism of state officials may be wider, since this is necessary to ensure the vowel and responsible execution of their powers (Clause 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02.24.2005 No. 3).

The position of the ECHR

Issues related to the involvement of publishers, editions of the media, journalists to civil liability have repeatedly become the subject of the case practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the decision (decisions) of which until recently were mandatory for execution within the framework of the national legal system of the Russian Federation.

Among the most important legal positions expressed by the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of civilian tortension of the media, the following can be distinguished:

1. The freedom of expression of opinions is one of the main foundations of a democratic society. This condition is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas”, which are considered harmless or neutral, but also to those that are insulting, shocking or causing. These are the requirements of pluralism, tolerance and the breadth of views, without which there is no democratic society.

2. The media play an important role in a democratic society. Although the media should not cross certain boundaries, in particular regarding the reputation and rights of other persons, their duty is reduced to the dissemination of information and ideas on all issues representing public interest.

3. Not only the content of the above ideas and information is subject to protection, but also the form of their presentation. Freedom of speech also includes possible exaggeration and even provocations. In order to make a difference between the actual statement and the assessment judgment, it is necessary to take into account the circumstances of the case and the general tone of the statements, bearing in mind that statements in matters of public interest can be based on evaluative judgments, and not on facts.

4. The limits of acceptable criticism of public persons (politicians, officials, officials, and so on) are wider than in relation to individuals. If national courts apply an excessively strict approach to evaluating the professional behavior of journalists, the latter may be unreasonably deprived of the opportunity to fulfill their function to inform the public. Therefore, the courts should take into account the likely influence of their decisions not only on certain cases, which are under their consideration, but also on the activities of the media as a whole.

At the same time, the European Court of Human Rights also notes that the task of implementing information posed to the media must necessarily includes certain “obligations and obligations”. Article 10 of the Convention provides the protection of journalists, provided that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the principles of responsible journalism. In a world where a person is faced with a huge amount of information translated by an increasing number of traditional and electronic media, monitoring compliance with journalistic ethics is of great importance.

Considering cases related to the bringing to the civil liability of journalists who, according to the plaintiffs, violated their constitutional right to the inviolability of private life, the European Court of Human Rights especially emphasized the state’s obligation to establish a fair balance between competing private interests or competing conventional rights: the right to freedom of speech and the right to the inviolability of private life.

The practice of Vladimir courts

During the study, the law enforcement practice of the courts of the general jurisdiction of the Vladimir region was analyzed in terms of attracting editorial offices, publishers of the media, authors and journalists to civil liability. Based on the results of the analytical study, a number of contradictions and conflicts were revealed in terms of regulatory regulation of the specified sphere of public relations.

1. The Oktyabrsky District Court of Vladimir considered a civil case, instituted on the statement of claim of the Vladimir regional branch of the All -Russian Public Organization “Young Guard of United Russia” to LLC Publishing House of the RKF Tomix, RKF Tomix LLC. The plaintiff demanded that the plaintiff recognize the inconsistent and defaming the business reputation of the plaintiff, claiming that the organization of the “Young Guard” “promotes the ideology of fascism, and can also commit criminal offenses, not bearing any responsibility” that were published in the Tomix newspaper.

The representative of the defendant, in turn, asked the court to refuse the claims, indicating that the controversial publication does not contain allegations of facts or events, and evaluative judgments, opinions, beliefs, which in essence are the contested comments, cannot be the subject of judicial protection. The defendant also referred to the fact that the disputed publication is a literal reproduction of readers' comments that were posted on social networks. At the same time, the name of the respondent organization was not specified in them.

During the consideration of a civil case, the court independently analyzed the substantial-semantic orientation of the text disputed by the plaintiff, came to the conclusion that the disputed publication contains statements about facts and events, and not assessment judgments and opinions, in connection with which he satisfied the claims, obliged the defendant to publish a refutation of the non-real branch of the All-Russian public organization. “Young Guard of United Russia” by the Vladimir region of information, by presenting the resolving part of the court decision on the pages of the newspaper. The Vladimir Regional Court, having examined the defendant's appeal, left the above decision in force.

At the same time, it seems that the qualifications of certain information as allegations of facts, and not evaluative judgments carried out by the court without the appointment of a forensic linguistic examination and without receiving the conclusion of a specialist in the field of linguistics, does not comply with the basic legal principles of the uniformity of forensic practice. The limits of a judicial discretion in this case, according to the author, are too wide, which allows the court arbitrarily, without having special knowledge in the field of linguistics, to evaluate the content and semantic orientation of linguistic constructs. At the same time, the legislator, speaking about the impossibility of legal protection against appraisal judgments and opinions expressed in an unfinition form, does not bring any specific criteria that allow identifying such judgments that, as the author believes, needs to be finalized and additional regulation.

2. Lieutenant General FSIN Ladik Alexander Fedorovich appealed to the Oktyabrsky District Court of Vladimir with a claim to LLC “Publishing House of the RKF Tomix” to recognize the honor, dignity and business reputation of the information published in the newspaper and the publication of information claiming that the plaintiff “had a lasting for a stay of it” The corruption scandal of four subordinates in the Sverdlovsk region controlled all state contracts in the department, and if necessary, perhaps they covered them, ”asked the court to oblige the defendant to remove the disputed material and publish a refutation.

The defendant, in turn, objected to the satisfaction of claims. He pointed out that the information is reliable, since disputed information was published, including other media. He believed that the contested information is not a defamatory in nature, that is, they are not an approval of the plaintiff’s violation, the commission of a dishonest act, incorrect, unethical behavior, and also referred to the precedent practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the broader limits of the more acceptable criticism of state bodies of state bodies.

The Oktyabrsky District Court of Vladimir, with his decision in the case, satisfied the claims, ordered the defendant to remove disputed materials and publish a refutation. The court also indicated, in particular, that the need to take into account the position of the European Court of Human Rights on the limits of criticism in relation to public persons who are wider than a private person, it correlates with the need to record the provisions of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Basic Freedoms, which do not guarantee the Persus completely unlimited freedom of expression, even in respect of coverage of issues that are of serious public interest.

Journalists, as the court of first instance indicates, with the position of which the Vladimir Regional Court agrees, must, when fulfilling their duties, comply with the principles of responsible journalism, namely, to act in good faith, provide accurate and reliable information, objectively reflect the opinions of persons participating in a public discussion, and refrain from striving for obvious sensation, also one of the necessary components to evaluate acceptable criticism is a sufficient actual basis.

At the same time, the legislator and the right of the Supreme Court, speaking of the wider limits of permissible criticism of public persons, do not indicate specific criteria, based on which the law enforcer should determine whether the indicated limits were violated by the media. Such vagueness and abstract of formulations, it seems, impose too broad powers in the part of the judicial discretion and is poorly correlated with the principles of universal equality before the law and fair justice.

3. Nikolenko Kirill Dmitrievich appealed to the Oktyabrsky District Court of Vladimir with a claim for the chief editor and founder of the TV-Mig Internet site, as well as to the author of the journalistic article posted on the website of the publication, which stated that the plaintiff “was repeatedly seen in various forms of the city, as well as by the sentence of the court. Putted for insulting the editor-in-chief of "TV-mig" Svetlana Kireeva. " In support of his requirements, the plaintiff indicated, in particular, that the word “verdict” was not used incorrectly, since it was about an administrative offense.

The defendant, in turn, drawed attention to the fact that the regional Internet publication “TV-Mig” is not a specialized legal publication and is designed for a wide audience of readers, for which the phrase “court decision” and “court verdict” are synonyms of the concept of “judicial verdict”, that is, the final document, which the court resolves the case on the merits. At the same time, the plaintiff was indeed brought to legal liability for insulting the chief editor of the publication. In this regard, the defendant concluded that disputed statements were not false and asked the court to refuse to satisfy the claims.

Nevertheless, the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Vladimir satisfied the claims, ordered the defendant to print a refutation and recovered from the founder of the publication in favor of the plaintiff compensation for non -pecuniary damage in the amount of three thousand rubles. The Vladimir Regional Court left the indicated decision without amendments, indicating, in particular, the plaintiff was indeed brought to administrative, but was not prosecuted. При этом смысл понятия «приговор», как уточняет суд, является очевидным. Собственное восприятие широкой аудитории читателей изложенной информации в данном случае правового значения не имеет.

Вместе с тем, определяя размер компенсации морального вреда на основании статьи 151 ГК РФ, суд ограничивается лишь общими и абстрактными формулировками, не раскрывая конкретные мотивы, по которым он счел справедливой и обоснованной именно такую денежную сумму. Во многом это связано с тем, что действующее российское законодательство не содержит четких критериев для его определения, о чем неоднократно высказывался Конституционный Суд.

Несмотря на то, что сумма компенсации морального вреда напрямую зависит от субъективной оценки суда и установить конкретные минимальные и максимальные пределы такой компенсации достаточно проблематично, как неоднократно отмечали многие авторы, законодатель не лишен возможности предусмотреть в нормативных правовых актах конкретные обстоятельства, являющиеся критериями, которыми судам следует руководствоваться, определяя размер такой компенсации, что отвечало бы принципам единообразия правоприменительной практики, всеобщего равенства перед законом и справедливого правосудия.

Стоит также обратить внимание и на позицию судов первой и второй инстанции относительно непринятия доводов ответчика, утверждающего о тождественности понятий «приговор» и «судебное решение» для обывательской аудитории, в связи с чем заключающего об отсутствии обязательного для удовлетворения искового заявления критерия порочащего характера распространяемых сведений.

Представляется, что в целях определения «порочности» в настолько нетривиальном контексте правоприменителю надлежало получить заключение специалиста в области лингвистики либо назначить судебную лингвистическую экспертизу. По мнению автора, необходимость исследовать позицию экспертов или специалистов в обозначенной области по делам о защите чести, достоинства и деловой репутации должна быть предусмотрена актами судебного толкования.

Некоторые выводы

По результатам исследования правоприменительной практики судов общей юрисдикции Владимирской области можно сделать вывод о наличии ряда существенных недостатков и коллизий в части правового регулирования деятельности средств массовой информации. Слишком широкие пределы судебного усмотрения позволяют правоприменителям произвольно и неединообразно толковать и интерпретировать правовые нормы, что идёт вразрез с принципами всеобщего равенства перед законом и судом, справедливого правосудия, и, соответственно, нуждается в доработке. Либо в нормативных правовых актах, либо в актах судебного толкования необходимо сформулировать конкретные критерии отделения оценочных суждений от утверждений о фактах, критерии оценки размера компенсации морального вреда, понесенного в связи с распространением ложных порочащих сведений, критерии определения пределов допустимой критики публичных лиц и условия назначения лингвистической экспертизы.

Настоящем лейтмотивом, определяющим проблематику в обозначенной сфере общественных отношений, представляются слишком широкие пределы судебного усмотрения, благодаря которым правоприменитель хоть и имеет возможность преодолеть недостатки правового регулирования, допущенные законодателем, однако лишен возможности принимать единообразные по содержанию судебные акты, обеспечивая тем самым реализацию базовых конституционных принципов всеобщего равенства перед законом и судом, справедливого и беспристрастного правосудия.