Dissemination of Information Discrediting the Honour and Dignity of a Citizen or an Organization Means Publishing Such Information in the Press, Broadcasting It on Radio or Television, or Disseminating It Through Other Mass Media

Paragraph 2 of the Regulatory Resolution on the Protection of Honour, Dignity and Business Reputation explains that the dissemination of information discrediting the honour and dignity of a citizen or an organization includes publishing such information in the press, broadcasting it on radio or television, disseminating it through other mass media, setting it out in references or character assessments, public speeches, statements addressed to various organizations or officials, or communicating it in any other form, including orally, to several persons or at least one person. Communicating such information only to the person whom it concerns cannot be regarded as its dissemination.

A. filed a lawsuit against K. for the protection of her honour and dignity, stating that a hearing on her appeal was held before the appellate court on October 22, 2024. During the court hearing, the defendant provided false information discrediting her. According to the defendant, she was an emotionally unstable employee who violated labour discipline and professional ethics.

The false information disseminated by K. consisted of statements that A. had “systematically insulted her in the office during working hours, threatened her with dismissal, stated that she did not wish to reconcile, and, in the presence of three judges of the panel, reported that there was no outstanding debt under an individual entrepreneurship registered fraudulently in her name and that she had suffered no damage.”

As a result of the dissemination of the discrediting information, her personal non-property rights were violated, and the defendant damaged her honour and dignity. She requested that K. be obliged to refute in writing the information discrediting her honour, dignity and business reputation.

By the decision of the Interdistrict Court of Shal Akyn District of the North Kazakhstan Region dated February 25, 2025, the claim was lawfully dismissed.

The court found that the defendant's statements constituted a means of defence and did not provide grounds for holding her civilly liable or requiring the refutation of the disputed information, since such actions could not be regarded as the dissemination of information discrediting the honour and dignity of a citizen. No evidence confirming the defendant's lack of fault was submitted to the court.

Furthermore, it could not be established that there had been any dissemination of information discrediting the claimant, as provided for by Article 143 of the Civil Code, since the communication was not public in nature, was not intended for a large number of people, was not published in the press, and was not transmitted through mass media. Consequently, the fact of dissemination was not confirmed.

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over disputes of this category is determined in accordance with the general rules established by Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Code: claims shall be filed with the court at the defendant's place of residence or location.

According to Part 12 of Article 30 of the Civil Procedure Code, claims against several defendants may, at the claimant's discretion, be filed at the location of any one of the defendants.

Cases concerning the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation are heard by courts of general jurisdiction. Claims concerning the protection of the honour, dignity and business reputation of legal entities also fall within the jurisdiction of district (city) courts. If the parties to such cases are a legal entity or an individual entrepreneur, the claim shall be considered by an economic court.

Cases related to the protection of the rights and interests of minors fall within exclusive jurisdiction and shall be considered by specialized interdistrict juvenile courts.

An analysis of cases showed that the courts of the Republic generally comply with the rules of jurisdiction.

At the same time, there have been isolated violations concerning the jurisdiction of cases.

Thus, by a ruling of the Mugalzhar District Court of the Aktobe Region dated April 30, 2024, in a case brought by Sh. against S. seeking a public apology on social media, a mediation agreement was approved.

The case materials show that the claimant, Sh., is the father of a minor, “A.”, whose photographs and video materials containing false and inaccurate information insulting his honour and dignity were published by the defendant.

Sh. filed the claim in the interests of his minor child, namely his son, born in 2011.

Pursuant to Part 3 of Article 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, cases related to the protection of the rights and interests of minors fall within exclusive jurisdiction and shall be considered by specialized interdistrict juvenile courts.

Since the claim affects the interests of minor children, including requests to prohibit the dissemination of information and to remove photographs, the case requires a special procedural approach and consideration by a specialized court. This provision entered into force on September 1, 2023.

At the stage of accepting the claim, or during the preparation or consideration of the case, the court should have, in accordance with Subparagraph 2) of Part 1 of Article 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, returned the claim or transferred the case to the court having proper jurisdiction. However, the court failed to do so.

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 84-VII ZRK dated December 20, 2021, introduced amendments to Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, providing the parties with the possibility of agreeing on extraterritorial (contractual) jurisdiction.

This provision is actively applied by the courts. During the period under review, a total of 48 cases were transferred under the rules of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Thus, pursuant to an agreement between the parties on extraterritorial jurisdiction, the case of B. against P. seeking recognition of information as untrue and discrediting honour and dignity, as well as compensation for moral damages, was transferred from a court of the North Kazakhstan Region to the Karakiya District Court of the Mangystau Region.

Similarly, the case brought by K. against O. for the protection of honour and dignity and compensation for moral damages was transferred from the Interdistrict Civil Court of Astana, under the rules of extraterritorial jurisdiction, to Court No. 2 of the Alihan Bokeikhan District of Karaganda.

The above-mentioned article provides the parties with the right to change territorial jurisdiction on the basis of an agreement between them. Such an agreement is binding both on the parties and on the court and must be made in writing.

State Duty

Pursuant to Subparagraph 7) of Article 610 of the Tax Code, a state duty in the amount of 0.5 of a monthly calculation index (hereinafter – MCI) is payable on statements of claim of a non-property nature.

According to Subparagraph 14) of Article 610 of the Tax Code, a state duty of 1% of the amount claimed is payable on claims filed by individuals seeking monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the dissemination of information discrediting their honour, dignity and business reputation.

The analysis showed that, in most cases, courts correctly calculate the state duty when a claim is filed.

However, certain shortcomings remain.

Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Regulatory Resolution on Court Costs, a statement of claim to which no document confirming payment of the state duty is attached, or where the state duty has not been paid in full or has been paid using incorrect payment details (beneficiary, code, budget classification code, etc.), shall be returned in accordance with Article 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, since non-payment of the state duty prevents the commencement of civil proceedings.

In some courts, there is a practice of charging a state duty in the amount of one MCI for a claim seeking protection of honour, dignity and business reputation, which is incorrect.

Thus, in accordance with the requirements of the Tax Code, where a claim contains only a request for the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation, a state duty of 0.5 MCI shall be payable. Where a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage is also filed, a state duty of 1% of the amount claimed must be paid.

Simplified Proceedings

Article 267-2 of the Civil Procedure Code provides a list of cases that may be considered under simplified (written) proceedings.

The review showed that courts generally consider all such cases under the rules of ordinary action proceedings.

At the same time, there was one case that was considered under simplified (written) proceedings.

Sh. and A. filed a claim against T. seeking the protection of their honour, dignity and business reputation, as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

By a ruling of the Kyzylorda City Court dated December 6, 2024, the case was ordered to be considered under simplified proceedings.

By a decision of the same court dated December 30, 2024, the claim was granted. Non-pecuniary damages in the amount of KZT 1,000,000 were awarded against the defendants.

By a ruling of the court dated January 20, 2025, the court decision was set aside.

By a court decision dated April 14, 2025, which entered into legal force, the claim was dismissed.

Cases concerning the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation fall within the category of non-pecuniary disputes.

This category of cases should be considered by courts under the rules of ordinary action proceedings, as they concern the protection of non-property rights and require a detailed examination of evidence, an assessment of the content of the disputed information, and, frequently, the appointment of linguistic and other expert examinations.

In order to establish all the circumstances in such cases, it is necessary to examine a number of pieces of evidence or obtain additional evidence. Therefore, courts are recommended to apply the provisions of Subparagraphs 5) and 6) of Part 3 of Article 267-1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Return of a Statement of Claim

Article 152 of the Civil Procedure Code provides an exhaustive list of grounds for returning a statement of claim.

Judicial practice includes cases involving claims seeking recognition that information disseminated on social networks, including YouTube, Telegram channels and Facebook, is untrue, discredits the claimant's honour and dignity, and damages the claimant's business reputation.

Some courts return such claims with reference to Paragraph 3 of Article 143 of the Civil Code, which provides for a mandatory pre-trial procedure in cases where a citizen's or legal entity's claim for the protection of honour and dignity is connected with the publication of a refutation or reply in the mass media.

Thus, by a ruling of the Taraz City Court dated July 25, 2024, the claim of E. against D. and others seeking recognition of a publication as untrue and damaging to business reputation was returned pursuant to Subparagraph 1) of Part 1 of Article 152 of the Civil Procedure Code due to non-compliance with the pre-trial dispute settlement procedure.

According to Article 143 of the Civil Code, if information discrediting the honour, dignity or business reputation of a citizen or legal entity is disseminated through mass media, it must be refuted free of charge through the same mass media. A citizen or legal entity whose rights or legitimate interests have been infringed by information published by mass media has the right to have their response published free of charge in the same mass media. A citizen's or legal entity's request for the publication of a refutation or response in mass media shall be considered by a court if the mass media outlet refuses such publication, fails to publish it within one month, or has been liquidated.

In the above case, the publications were posted by the defendants on the YouTube social media platform and the “Base” Telegram channel, both of which were accessible to any user. Therefore, social media platforms are not liable for publications made by their users.

Under these circumstances, the court's conclusion that the claimant was required to send the defendants a demand for the refutation of the publications as part of a pre-trial dispute settlement procedure appears to be incorrect.

Another example is the ruling of the G. Musrepov District Court of the North Kazakhstan Region dated July 28, 2023, by which the claim of S. against B. and others seeking recognition that certain information was untrue and discredited the claimant's honour, dignity and business reputation was returned on the same grounds.

The judge stated that the claimant had not applied to the mass media outlet — the partner programme of the “YouTube” Internet resource, or to the “Agroblog.kz” online publication on YouTube — requesting a refutation of the disseminated video material, and had not submitted to the court any evidence of a refusal to publish such a refutation.

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the North Kazakhstan Regional Court correctly found the return of the claim to be unfounded, since the claimant had not brought any claims against mass media outlets and the statement of claim contained no request for the publication of a refutation.

The claimant had brought claims against three individuals seeking recognition that the information was untrue and discredited the claimant's honour, dignity and business reputation, without seeking its refutation. Therefore, there were no grounds for returning the statement of claim.

Leaving a Claim Without Consideration

The grounds for leaving a claim without consideration are regulated by Article 279 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The review showed that, in general, courts comply with this procedural provision of the law.

At the same time, there are examples of courts returning claims on grounds not provided for by law.

Thus, by a ruling of the Kokshetau City Court dated June 4, 2024, the claim of B. against O. for the protection of honour and dignity and recovery of a monetary amount was returned on the grounds that the claimant had failed to clarify the claims.

However, such a ground for leaving a claim without consideration is not provided for by procedural law.

By a ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Akmola Regional Court dated August 14, 2024, the court's ruling was set aside and the case was remitted for a new hearing, which resulted in delays in the consideration of the case.

The claim was received by the court on March 27, 2024, and was considered on the merits only on October 31, 2024.

Thus, a case that did not present any particular complexity remained unresolved for seven months.

Termination of Proceedings in Connection with the Conclusion of Settlement Agreements

The idea of introducing conciliation procedures as one of the priority areas for improving the judicial system was embodied in the Law on Mediation, which laid the foundation for the development of mediation as a conciliation procedure in various fields.

A judge takes measures to reconcile the parties, assists them in resolving the dispute at all stages of the proceedings, and sends the parties an invitation to participate in a conciliation procedure.

Current legislation allows an agreement to be concluded only between the parties in cases falling within the category under review. The agreement must contain the terms agreed upon by the parties, specifying the time limit and procedure for its implementation.

Judicial Practice in the Consideration of Cases

Judicial statistics indicate a certain increase in the number of cases in this category. This is facilitated by the development and accessibility of social networks and information, increased legal awareness of the population, a more active position of citizens, and other factors.

In most cases, the parties in cases of this category are individuals, while the subject matter of the dispute consists of information disseminated by the defendants, including through mass media, which is of a defamatory nature and does not correspond to reality.

The main remedies chosen for the protection of their rights are compensation for non-pecuniary damage or reimbursement of losses caused by the dissemination of defamatory information, as well as such special remedies for the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation as the refutation of defamatory information disseminated through mass media, publication of a response, and removal of the relevant information from the Internet.

Article 18 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, and protection of their honour and dignity.

Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, everyone has the right, in accordance with the procedure established by this Code, to apply to a court for the protection of violated or disputed rights, freedoms or legitimate interests.

Under Article 141 of the Civil Code, personal non-property rights are subject to protection regardless of the fault of the person who violated the right, unless otherwise provided by the Code. A person who brings a claim for protection must prove the fact of violation of their personal non-property right.

Pursuant to Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 143 of the Civil Code, a citizen has the right to demand, through the courts, the refutation of information discrediting their honour, dignity or business reputation. If information discrediting the honour, dignity or business reputation of a citizen or legal entity has been disseminated through mass media, it must be refuted free of charge through the same mass media.

A court shall issue a decision granting a claim for the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation where the following three conditions are established cumulatively: the information must be defamatory in nature, it must have been disseminated, and it must not correspond to reality. In cases of this category, the claimant is required to prove the fact that the information was disseminated by the person against whom the claim was brought, as well as the defamatory nature of such information. The burden of proving that the information disseminated by the defendant corresponds to reality rests with the defendant.

According to Paragraph 1 of the Regulatory Resolution on the Protection of Honour, Dignity and Business Reputation, defamatory information means information that does not correspond to reality and diminishes the honour and dignity of a citizen in the public opinion or in the opinion of individual citizens from the standpoint of compliance with laws and the moral principles of society.

To Grant a Claim in Such Disputes, the Following Circumstances Must Be Established Simultaneously:

• the fact that the defendant disseminated the information;
• the defamatory nature of the information;
• the fact that the information does not correspond to reality.

The claimant is required to prove only the fact that the person against whom the claim has been brought disseminated information that is defamatory of the claimant. At the same time, the claimant may also submit evidence demonstrating that the information discrediting their honour and dignity does not correspond to reality.

The absence of even one of the circumstances constituting the mandatory set of conditions for granting the claim (the information must be defamatory in nature, must have been disseminated, and must not correspond to reality) constitutes grounds for dismissing the claims.

The Main Regulatory Legal Acts Are:

The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated August 30, 1995 (hereinafter – the Constitution);

The Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (General Part), adopted by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan on December 27, 1994; the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Special Part), adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan on July 1, 1999 (hereinafter – the Civil Code);

The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 3, 2015 (hereinafter – the Civil Procedure Code);

The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Taxes and Other Obligatory Payments to the Budget” dated December 25, 2017 (hereinafter – the Tax Code);

Regulatory Resolution No. 6 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 18, 1992, “On Certain Issues of Application by Courts of Legislation on the Protection of Honour, Dignity and Business Reputation of Individuals and Legal Entities” (hereinafter – the Regulatory Resolution on the Protection of Honour, Dignity and Business Reputation);

Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 27, 2015, “On the Application by Courts of Legislation on Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage” (hereinafter – the Regulatory Resolution on Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage);

Regulatory Resolution No. 5 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 11, 2003, “On Court Decisions in Civil Cases”;

Regulatory Resolution No. 9 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 25, 2006, “On the Application by Courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan of Legislation on Court Costs in Civil Cases” (hereinafter – the Regulatory Resolution on Court Costs);

• the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 23, 1999, “On Mass Media” (hereinafter – the Law on Mass Media);
• the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 19, 2024, “On Mass Media”;
• the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 28, 2011, “On Mediation” (hereinafter – the Law on Mediation).

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases