Civil Code of the Russian Federation Article 152. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation

(see text in previous edition)

1. A citizen has the right to demand in court the 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 done in the same way that information about the citizen was disseminated, or in another similar way.

At the request of interested persons, it is allowed to protect the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen 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 specified information has been disseminated in the media has the right to demand, along with a refutation, the publication of his answer in the same media.

3. If information defaming the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen is contained in a document issued by the organization, such a document must be replaced or revoked.

4. In cases where information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen has become widely known and in this regard, the refutation cannot be brought to the general knowledge, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as suppression or prohibition of the further dissemination of this information by means of seizure and destruction, without any compensation, of copies of material carriers containing the specified information made for the purpose of putting into civil circulation, if the removal of the relevant information is impossible without the destruction of such copies of material carriers.

5. If information defaming the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen turned out to be 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 this information in a way that ensures that the refutation is brought to the 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 - of this article, shall be established by the court.

7. Application of measures of responsibility to the violator for non-execution of the 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 establish the person who disseminated information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, the citizen in respect of whom such information is disseminated has the right to apply to the court with a statement declaring the disseminated information untrue.

9. A citizen in respect of whom information has been disseminated that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, along with the refutation of such information or the publication of his response, 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 - of this article, with the exception of 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 specified information does not correspond to reality. The limitation period for claims in connection with the dissemination of the specified information in the media is one year from the date of publication of 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, shall accordingly apply to the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity.

1. Life and health, personal dignity, personal integrity, honor and good name, business reputation, privacy, personal and family secrets, the right to 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 non-material benefits that belonged to the deceased may be exercised and protected by other persons, including the heirs of the copyright 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 those limits in which the use of methods of protecting civil rights () follows from the essence of the violated intangible right and the nature of the consequences of this violations.

Article 151. Compensation for moral damage

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

Article 152. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation

1. A citizen has the right to demand in court the refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that it is true.

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

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

If the specified information is contained in a document issued by the organization, such a document is subject to replacement or withdrawal.

The procedure for refutation in other cases is established by the court.

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

4. If the decision of the court is not fulfilled, the court shall have the right to impose a fine on the offender, collected in the amount and in the manner prescribed by procedural legislation, to the income of the Russian Federation. Payment of the fine does not relieve the offender from the obligation to perform the action provided for by the court decision.

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

6. If it is impossible to establish the person who disseminated information discrediting 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 with a statement declaring the disseminated information untrue.

Do you think you are Russian? Born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is not true.

You are actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian. But you think you are a Jew.

Game? Wrong word. The correct word is "imprinting".

The newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is inherent in most living creatures with vision.

For the first few days, newborns in the USSR saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time, and most of the time they saw the faces of the hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. The reception is wild in its essence and effectiveness.

All your childhood you wondered why you live surrounded by non-native people. Rare Jews on your way could do anything with you, because you were drawn to them, and others were repelled. And even now they can.

You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It is difficult to understand this, the instinct took shape when you were still very far from the ability to formulate. Since that moment, no words or details have survived. Only facial features remained in the depths of my memory. Those traits that you consider to be your own.

System and Observer

Let's define a system as an object, the existence of which is beyond doubt.

An observer of a system is an object that is not part of the system he observes, that is, it determines its existence, including through factors independent of the system.

From the point of view of the system, the observer is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a causal relationship with the system.

An internal observer is a potentially achievable object for the system in relation to which inversion of observation and control channels is possible.

An external observer is even a potentially unattainable object for the system, located beyond the event horizon of the system (spatial and temporal).

Hypothesis No. 1. All-seeing eye

Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can occur, for example, with the help of "gravitational radiation" penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The capture cross-section of "gravitational radiation" is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the "shadow" from this capture onto another object is perceived as a force of attraction. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the "shadow".

The capture of "gravitational radiation" by an object increases its chaos and is perceived by us as the passage of time. An object that is opaque for "gravitational radiation", the capture cross section of which is larger than the geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.

Hypothesis No. 2. Internal observer

It is possible that our universe is observing itself. For example, with the help of pairs of quantum entangled particles spaced apart in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, reaching the maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means that there is no sufficiently large capture cross section on the trajectories of objects to absorb these particles. The rest of the assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Time flow

Third-party observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the “external observer” is the determining factor of time in the universe, will slow down exactly twice - the black hole's shadow will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation”. If the “inner observer” is the determining factor, then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the side.

Also, the possibility of combining these hypotheses in one proportion or another is not excluded.

(as amended by Federal Law of 02.07.2013 N 142-FZ)

1. A citizen has the right to demand in court the 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 done in the same way that information about the citizen was disseminated, or in another similar way.

At the request of interested persons, it is allowed to protect the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen 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 specified information has been disseminated in the media has the right to demand, along with a refutation, the publication of his answer in the same media.

3. If information defaming the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen is contained in a document emanating from the organization, such a document must be replaced or revoked.

4. In cases where information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen has become widely known and in this regard, the refutation cannot be brought to the general knowledge, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as suppression or prohibition of the further dissemination of this information by means of seizure and destruction, without any compensation, of copies of material carriers containing the specified information made for the purpose of putting into civil circulation, if the removal of the relevant information is impossible without the destruction of such copies of material carriers.

5. If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen turned out to be 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 this information in a way that ensures that the refutation is communicated to 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, shall be established by the court.

7. Application of measures of responsibility to the violator for non-execution of the 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 establish the person who disseminated information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, the citizen in respect of whom such information is disseminated has the right to apply to the court with a statement declaring the disseminated information untrue.

9. A citizen in respect of whom information has been disseminated that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, along with the refutation of such information or the publication of his response, 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 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 specified information does not correspond to reality. The limitation period for claims in connection with the dissemination of this information in the media is one year from the date of publication of 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, shall accordingly apply to the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity.

Comments on the article

The right to the protection of honor and good name is guaranteed by Art. 43 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Comment. Art. determines the conditions and procedure for protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities. Honor is a public assessment of the social and spiritual qualities of an individual; dignity - an internal assessment of one's own qualities by a person; business reputation - the prevailing public opinion about the professional merits of an individual and a legal entity. Since an infringement on the dignity of a person cannot be imagined without an infringement on her honor, the concepts of honor and dignity are usually used together. On the contrary, infringement on business reputation can be independent.

In accordance with para. 1 clause 2 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Council of August 18, 1992 N 11 "On some issues that have arisen when the courts are considering the protection of the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities" under the dissemination of information discrediting the honor and dignity of citizens or the business reputation of citizens and legal entities, it should be understood the publication of such information in the press, broadcast on radio and television programs, demonstration in newsreel programs and other media, presentation in official characteristics, public speeches, statements addressed to officials, or a message in another , including oral, form to several or at least one person. The communication of such information to the person to whom they concern cannot be recognized as their dissemination.

A person's demand for the protection of honor, dignity or business reputation is subject to protection if the disseminated information is, firstly, defamatory, and secondly, untrue.

Defamatory information is such information that belittles the honor and dignity of a citizen or the business reputation of a citizen or legal entity in terms of ethical, moral principles, business customs, etc. In accordance with par. 2, clause 2 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 11, information containing statements about violation by a citizen or a legal entity of current legislation or moral principles (about committing a dishonest act, improper behavior in the work collective, everyday life and other information discrediting industrial, economic and social activity, business reputation, etc.).

In the order defined by the comment. Art., can not be considered claims to refute information contained in court decisions and sentences, decisions of the preliminary investigation authorities and other official documents, for the appeal of which a different procedure established by laws is provided (paragraph 3 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 11).

Information discrediting a person must relate to the facts that have taken place (behavior of a person, his specific actions); value judgments (such as "sneaky person", "incompetent journalist", "unreliable organization") cannot serve as a basis for satisfying the claim, although it is often difficult to determine where the value judgment ends and the statement of fact begins.

The disseminated information must be untrue. Otherwise, no matter how discrediting this information may be, the person will be deprived of legal protection. In this case, the plaintiff is obliged to prove the very fact of the dissemination of information (clause 7 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 11), as well as the fact that the disseminated information is defamatory. The responsibility of proving the correspondence of the disseminated information to reality rests with the defendant.

Sometimes common information may be true, but at the same time defamatory. Thus, the dissemination of information that a person was undergoing treatment for a venereal disease can negatively affect the assessment of this person in the eyes of society. However, if this person applies to the court with a claim for the protection of honor and dignity, the court may refuse the plaintiff to satisfy his claims in view of the fact that the fact of treatment did take place. In this regard, some scientists propose to amend the relevant norm of the Civil Code in such a way that a person is provided with legal protection in the event of dissemination of information, although relevant to reality, but defamatory, except for cases when the dissemination of such information is necessary to protect rights and interests. other persons. Thus, the guardianship and trusteeship authorities and the prosecutor will be forced to voice in court the information they know about crimes or immoral acts committed by a person, if this person claims to become an adoptive parent. In such a situation, the dissemination of such information is necessary to protect the rights of the adopted child.

At the request of interested persons, it is allowed to protect the honor and dignity of a citizen after his death (see commentary to Article 150 of the Civil Code). Interested persons include the surviving spouse and close relatives (parents, children, brothers, sisters, grandfathers, grandmothers, grandchildren), since there are concepts such as family honor, surname honor, family honor (see also: Maleina M.N. . Personal non-property rights of citizens. M., 2000. S. 141). Some organizations can also be recognized as interested parties (for example, the Union of Composers of the Russian Federation, the Union of Writers of the Russian Federation, the Union of Theater Workers of Russia). The prosecutor can also bring such claims (Article 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

The main remedy provided by the comment. Art., is a refutation of information discrediting a citizen or legal entity.

If information defaming the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen or legal entity is disseminated in the media, they must be refuted in the same media. The persons who disseminated this information are defendants in claims for the refutation of information discrediting honor and dignity or business reputation. If the claim contains a requirement to refute information disseminated in the media, the author and the editorial staff of the corresponding media outlet are involved as defendants. The procedure for publishing a refutation and the grounds for refusing to publish a refutation are established by Art. 43-45 of the Law on Mass Media.

In claims for the refutation of defamatory information stated in the service characteristics, the defendants are the persons who signed them, and the enterprise, institution, organization on whose behalf the characteristic was issued (clause 6 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 11).

At the same time, the law does not oblige the plaintiff to preliminarily file a claim with the defendant, including in the case when the claim is brought against the mass media that disseminated defamatory information.

If it is impossible to establish the person who disseminated information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen or legal entity, the victim has the right to apply to the court with a statement declaring the disseminated information untrue. In this case, we are talking about the establishment of facts that have legal significance, therefore, such issues should be resolved in a special procedure in accordance with Ch. 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A citizen or an organization in respect of which the mass media have published information that infringes on their rights or interests protected by law have the right to publish their response in the same mass media. The right to reply (comment, reply) is regulated in more detail by the Law on Mass Media (Article 46 of the Law).

Item 4 comments Art. essentially reproduces the norm contained in the Law on Enforcement Proceedings. In the event of non-execution without valid reasons of an enforcement document obliging the debtor to take certain actions or refrain from performing them, within the time period established by the bailiff-executor, he issues a resolution on imposing a fine on the debtor in the amount of up to 200 minimum wages and assigns him a new deadline for execution ( Article 85 of the Law). In case of subsequent violations by the debtor without good reason, the new deadlines for the execution of the court order, the amount of the fine is doubled each time. Payment of the fine does not relieve the offender from the obligation to perform the action provided for by the court decision.

An encroachment on the honor and dignity of a citizen and the business reputation of a citizen or legal entity can lead to adverse consequences in their property sphere (see, in particular, Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court dated September 23, 1999 No. 46 "Review of the practice of resolving disputes by arbitration courts related to with protection of business reputation "(Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court. 1999. N 11). In this case, they have the right to demand compensation from the defendant. to claim compensation for damages and compensation for moral damage (see Art. 151 of the Civil Code and the commentary to it) caused by their dissemination. compensation regardless of the fault of the inflictor.

Due to the fact that legal entities are a fiction, and therefore cannot experience physical or mental suffering, they have no right to compensation for moral harm.

The limitation period does not apply to claims for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation (Article 208 of the Civil Code).

The honor and dignity of a citizen is also protected by criminal law. In the event that the actions of the person who disseminated information discrediting another person contain signs of a crime under Art. 129 of the Criminal Code (libel) or Art. 130 of the Criminal Code (insult), the victim has the right to apply to the court with a statement to bring the perpetrator to criminal responsibility, as well as to file a claim for the protection of honor and dignity or business reputation in civil proceedings.

Refusal to initiate a criminal case, termination of an initiated criminal case, as well as a verdict do not exclude the possibility of filing a claim for the protection of honor and dignity or business reputation in civil proceedings (clause 8 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 11).

Article 152. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation

1. A citizen has the right to demand in court the 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 done in the same way that information about the citizen was disseminated, or in another similar way.

At the request of interested persons, it is allowed to protect the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen 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 specified information has been disseminated in the media has the right to demand, along with a refutation, the publication of his answer in the same media.

3. If information defaming the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen is contained in a document emanating from the organization, such a document must be replaced or revoked.

4. In cases where information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen has become widely known and in this regard, the refutation cannot be brought to the general knowledge, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as suppression or prohibition of the further dissemination of this information by means of seizure and destruction, without any compensation, of copies of material carriers containing the specified information made for the purpose of putting into civil circulation, if the removal of the relevant information is impossible without the destruction of such copies of material carriers.

5. If information defaming the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen turned out to be 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 this information in a way that ensures that the refutation is brought to the 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, shall be established by the court.

7. Application of measures of responsibility to the violator for non-execution of the 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 establish the person who disseminated information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, the citizen in respect of whom such information is disseminated has the right to apply to the court with a statement declaring the disseminated information untrue.

9. A citizen in respect of whom information has been disseminated that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, along with the refutation of such information or the publication of his response, 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 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 specified information does not correspond to reality. The limitation period for claims in connection with the dissemination of this information in the media is one year from the date of publication of 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, shall accordingly apply to the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity.