On Recognizing Publications as Untrue by Judicial Procedure and Ordering Their Removal
The Plaintiff, IA B, applied to the District Court No. 2 of the Almaly District of the City of Almaty under the circumstances set out below.
On the official page of tengrinews.kz, owned by TOO “Effective Media Liaisons” (hereinafter – the Defendant), posts featuring citizen IAB (hereinafter – the Plaintiff) were published, containing knowingly false, inaccurate and untrue information concerning the Plaintiff.
Links to the publications:
1. https://tengrinews.kz/show/;
2. https://tengrinews.kz/show/;
Below, the substance of the violations concerning each publication is set out:
Publication No. 1, located at https://tengrinews.kz/show/, states that the Plaintiff “appeared on the cover of MOVER magazine,” which is false, since in fact she only participated in the selection process, did not take any place, and did not appear on the cover. The article attributes to the Plaintiff publications in FHM Netherlands, which never occurred, and states that she worked as a public relations director in a private company, which does not correspond to reality. It also indicates a false number of victories in beauty contests, whereas her only victory was Universe 2020, and participation in USA did not constitute a victory. Thus, the material is based on inaccurate facts, creates a false professional and public image of the Plaintiff, and misleads readers.
Publication No. 2, located at https://tengrinews.kz/show/, contains sexualized photographs of the Plaintiff in underwear, thongs and stockings, with a strong emphasis on intimate areas, which has no news-related necessity and violates her right to her image. The Plaintiff never consented to such dissemination, as confirmed by her direct explanations. The article attributes to the Plaintiff the statement “I really dream of gracing the cover of MAXIM,” although in fact she never made such statements. The material repeats false information regarding victories, mentioning Miss Asia USA as a victory, although no such fact exists. The publications posted by the Defendant also aggravate the harm by repeatedly disseminating revealing photographs and false information. The above actions also contradict the provisions of Article 145 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the Civil Code).
Publications Nos. 3 and 4, located at https://tengrinews.kz/show/kazahstanka-zavoevala-titul-4-ya-vitse-miss-miss-grand-sea-276957/ and https://tengrinews.kz/mixnews/kazahstanka-na-konkurse-miss-grand-sea-universe-2015-276687/, attribute to her the title of “4th Vice-Miss” at the international beauty contest Miss Grand Sea Universe-2015, which does not correspond to reality. Yes, she entered the group of finalists, but, contrary to what is stated in the publications, she did not receive the title of “4th Vice-Miss.”
Publication No. 5, located at https://tengrinews.kz/mixnews/kazahstanka-ocharovala-sudey-konkursa-miss-asia-usa-384552/, contains inaccurate information, as it falsely states that the Plaintiff won the Miss Asia USA 2019 contest and allegedly received the title of Miss Global Europe 2019 as the first-place winner, whereas in fact she only participated in the contest and did not become its winner. This post also states that the Plaintiff worked as a public relations director in a private company, which, as indicated above, does not correspond to reality.
Publication No. 6, located at https://tengrinews.kz/show/, disseminates inaccurate information about the Plaintiff’s participation in contests, attributing to her two victories in beauty contests in the United States and again stating that the Plaintiff allegedly received the title of 1st Vice-Miss Global Europe 2019. These statements do not correspond to reality, since the Plaintiff did not achieve the said victory and in fact has only one confirmed title – Miss Nation Universe 2020. The information in this publication stating that in 2018 the Plaintiff was included in the list of the 50 most beautiful women of modern times according to the New York magazine MAXIM USA also does not correspond to reality, as the Plaintiff denies this fact. Thus, the publication repeatedly disseminates false information, creating a distorted perception of the scope of the Plaintiff’s achievements.
Publication No. 7, located at https://tengrinews.kz/show/, states in English that the Plaintiff allegedly would represent Kazakhstan at the international Miss Freedom of the World contest, which is false and never occurred. The article claims that she participated, thereby creating the impression that she had an official status, although the Plaintiff never participated in this contest.
Publication No. 8, located at https://tengrinews.kz/show/, also does not correspond to reality, since the Plaintiff did not participate in, did not appear on the cover of, and was not published in “Mover” magazine. Moreover, this publication constitutes the most significant violation of the Plaintiff’s rights, since it was published in the Kazakh language, with coverage of the most sensitive cultural audience, and contains images of the Plaintiff with her breasts exposed and other elements of an intimate nature. These images have no news-related or public necessity and constitute visual exploitation of the Plaintiff’s body, published without her consent.
Publication No. 9, located at https://tengrinews.kz/show/, also attributes various achievements to the Plaintiff that mislead readers and thereby damage the Plaintiff’s business reputation, since this post also states that the Plaintiff received the title of 1st Vice-Miss at Miss Global Europe 2019.
Publication No. 10, located at https://tengrinews.kz/show/ (this website is also owned by the Defendant), also published a publication in the Kazakh language that does not correspond to reality.
The materials disseminated by the Defendant contain factual inaccuracies and information that does not correspond to reality, since the publications attribute to the Plaintiff victories in contests in which she did not participate, titles which she does not hold, as well as achievements, including the statement that she “appeared on the cover of a magazine,” although no such event has ever occurred in her biography. Certain articles falsely state that the Plaintiff represented Kazakhstan at international contests, although she did not in fact participate in the said events. An additional aggravating factor is that some publications were posted in Kazakh and English, as a result of which the inaccurate information received wide dissemination in the national and international information space, significantly increasing the harm caused to the Plaintiff. As a result of the mass dissemination of false information, her business reputation was substantially undermined, her honor and dignity were humiliated, and the public was given the erroneous impression that the Plaintiff herself attributed achievements to herself that did not correspond to reality. All of these circumstances caused the Plaintiff severe moral harm, which continues to worsen as users retain access to the said publications.
The Defendant is also liable for the consequences of the mass dissemination of inaccurate information, since the publications posted on the Tengrinews.kz website became the original source for numerous other Internet resources and media outlets, which copied and disseminated the materials, including the texts and photographs of the Plaintiff, without her consent. In particular, similar publications were posted on the Internet platforms abal.kg at https://tengrinews.kz/show/, on the Asia Times website at https://tengrinews.kz/show/, on the Sputnik Georgia resource at https://tengrinews.kz/show/, and on the Myseldon information portal at https://tengrinews.kz/show/, where the same texts and images originally published by the Defendant were also disseminated. Such publications received mass distribution throughout the CIS countries and beyond, and were posted by persons and organizations with whom the Plaintiff has no legal relationship and whose actions she cannot influence. The Plaintiff’s attempts to settle the dispute at the pre-trial stage by sending notices and claims to the business entities that had posted the copied materials did not result in termination of the dissemination, since a significant portion of these resources are located outside the Republic of Kazakhstan and are beyond the Plaintiff’s influence. As a result, inaccurate information containing her personal data and images continues to circulate on the international Internet, repeatedly increasing the scale of the moral harm, reputational damage, and negative consequences caused to the Plaintiff’s honor, dignity and business reputation. Accordingly, the harm is continuing in nature, since the publications remain available online, and therefore each new viewing by users constitutes a new fact of causing harm.
Pursuant to Article 4 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mass Media” (hereinafter – the Law), the activities of mass media are based on the principles of legality, objectivity and reliability of the information disseminated. These principles oblige the editorial office and journalists to publish only verified information, preventing distortion of facts and misleading of readers.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the said Law, a journalist is obliged to take measures to verify the reliability of the information disseminated, including by sending inquiries to relevant individuals and legal entities or by other means provided for by law. A journalist is also obliged not to disseminate information that does not correspond to reality and to respect the rights and legitimate interests of individuals.
Paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Law expressly establishes that messages and materials of an Internet publication must be accompanied by the name of the Internet publication and the date of issue, while paragraph 4 of the same article requires that, when disseminating materials of an information agency, a reference to the source be mandatory. This means that publication of materials without indicating their origin violates the procedure for dissemination of information established by law.
Despite the direct requirements of the law, the Defendant disseminated information about the Plaintiff’s participation in contests and professional activities without carrying out any verification and without contacting the Plaintiff to confirm the information, which resulted in the formation of false factual data. None of the disputed publications contains either an indication of the source of the information, references to official statements, or documentary evidence, which demonstrates a direct violation of the Plaintiff’s right to an accurate representation of her personality in the information space and violates the requirements of Articles 4, 19 and 26 of the Law.
The absence of verification, the absence of an indication of the original source, and the dissemination of knowingly inaccurate information confirm the unlawfulness of the Defendant’s actions and constitute grounds for imposing liability on it in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Pursuant to Article 38 of the Law, an individual or legal entity has the right to demand from mass media a refutation of information that does not correspond to reality and that discredits his or her honor, dignity and business reputation, which has been disseminated by such mass media. Such right is also held by representatives of the individual or legal entity.
If an individual or legal entity applies for a refutation, the editorial office of the mass media, if it does not possess evidence that the information disseminated by such mass media corresponds to reality, is obliged to refute it in the same mass media.
The Plaintiff notes that immediately after learning in 2023 about the existence of the disputed publications, she contacted the Defendant through all available contact details indicated on the Tengrinews website, requesting that the materials containing inaccurate information and posted without her consent be removed. The communication was in the nature of an ordinary human request to resolve the situation peacefully and stop further dissemination of information affecting her honor, dignity and image. However, the Defendant ignored these requests and took no action to remove or correct the materials. Subsequently, due to the ineffectiveness of the Plaintiff’s independent attempts, she sought legal assistance from the law firm “Zakon i Pravo,” and on December 12, 2025, the Plaintiff’s representative sent an official pre-trial claim to the Defendant. A response to the said claim was received one month later, and in its response the Defendant refused to satisfy the Plaintiff’s demands, refused to remove the publications and effectively stated that an amicable settlement of the dispute was impossible, thereby forcing the Plaintiff to seek judicial protection.
Paragraph 4 of Article 38 of the Law provides that a claim by an individual or legal entity for publication of a refutation or response in mass media shall be considered by a court if the mass media refused such publication or failed to publish the refutation or response within one month, as well as in the event of liquidation of the relevant mass media.
Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan guarantees everyone the right to privacy and personal and family secrets. Contrary to this constitutional guarantee, the Defendant disseminated, without the Plaintiff’s consent, information affecting her private, family and professional sphere, a significant portion of which is inaccurate. The publications posted by the Defendant on its Internet resource and subsequently disseminated on social networks directly concern the Plaintiff’s private life, biography, personal status, appearance and professional activities, which takes the Defendant’s actions beyond the permissible limits of informational coverage and violates the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to respect for her private and family life.
As a result of the dissemination on the Internet of inaccurate information that does not correspond to reality, the Plaintiff suffered substantial moral harm. The public dissemination of false information caused the Plaintiff emotional suffering manifested in prolonged emotional distress, anxiety, a feeling of being a liar, and social restriction. These experiences affected her daily life, professional activities and relationships with others. She experienced severe stress and was forced to explain herself to her husband, relatives, acquaintances and colleagues, thereby repeatedly experiencing moral pressure and psychological discomfort.
Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Law provides that a citizen in respect of whom information that does not correspond to reality and discredits his or her honor, dignity and business reputation has been disseminated has the right, along with refutation of such information, to demand compensation for losses and moral harm caused by its dissemination, in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Guided by the said provision of law, and taking into account the nature of the information disseminated, its public nature, the scale of dissemination and the severity of the consequences for the Plaintiff’s psychological condition, the Plaintiff considers it fair to recover from the Defendant compensation for moral harm in the amount of KZT 1,000,000 (one million).
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 113 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, at the request of the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered, the court awards from the other party the expenses incurred by that party for payment for the assistance of a representative (several representatives) who participated in the proceedings and was not in an employment relationship with that party, in the amount of the actual expenses incurred by the party.
Paragraph 8 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 18, 1992 No. 6 “On Application in Judicial Practice of Legislation on Protection of Honor, Dignity and Business Reputation of Individuals and Legal Entities” (hereinafter – the Regulatory Resolution) provides that, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 141 and paragraph 1 of Article 143 of the Civil Code, the burden of proving that the disseminated information corresponds to reality rests with the Defendant. The Plaintiff is required only to prove the fact that the defamatory information was disseminated by the person against whom the claim is brought, while the Plaintiff may also submit evidence that the information damaging his or her honor and dignity does not correspond to reality. If the evidence is insufficient, the court may invite the parties to submit additional evidence or request such evidence on its own initiative.
Pursuant to subparagraph 3) of paragraph 3 of Article 951 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, moral harm shall be compensated regardless of the fault of the person causing the harm if the harm was caused by the dissemination of information discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation.
Pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 27, 2015 No. 7 “On Application by Courts of Legislation on Compensation for Moral Harm,” when determining the amount of compensation for moral harm, the court shall be guided by the principles of fairness and sufficiency.
Based on the foregoing and guided by Article 38 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mass Media” and Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 18, 1992 No. 6 “On Application in Judicial Practice of Legislation on Protection of Honor, Dignity and Business Reputation of Individuals and Legal Entities,” the Plaintiff requested the Court:
1. To recognize the following publication:
published by the Defendant, TOO “Effective Media Liaisons,” on the website tengrinews.kz concerning the Plaintiff, IAB, as not corresponding to reality;
2. To oblige the Defendant, TOO “Effective Media Liaisons,” to remove the publication:
published on the website tengrinews.kz concerning the Plaintiff, IAB;
3. To recover from the Defendant, TOO “Effective Media Liaisons,” in favor of the Plaintiff, IAB, compensation for moral harm in the amount of KZT 1,000,000;
4. To recover from the Defendant, TOO “Effective Media Liaisons,” in favor of the Plaintiff, IAB, the state duty expenses in the amount of KZT 4,325 paid for claims of a non-property nature, as well as KZT 10,000 paid for a claim of a property nature;
5. To recover from the Defendant, TOO “Effective Media Liaisons,” in favor of the Plaintiff, IAB, representative expenses in the amount of KZT 1,000,000.
On April 16, 2026, the District Court No. 2 of the Almaly District of the City of Almaty considered civil case No. 7520-26-00-2/5631 in an open court hearing. The case concerned recognition of information as not corresponding to reality and defamatory of honor, dignity and business reputation, recovery of compensation for moral harm and expenses incurred.
The Court stated that, pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 143 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the Civil Code), a citizen has the right to demand in court the refutation of information discrediting his or her honor, dignity or business reputation.
According to the explanations contained in paragraph 1 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court dated December 18, 1992 No. 6 “On Application in Judicial Practice of Legislation on Protection of Honor, Dignity and Business Reputation of Individuals and Legal Entities” (hereinafter – the Regulatory Resolution), dissemination of information discrediting the honor and dignity of a citizen or an organization means its publication in the press, communication by radio or television, using other mass media, presentation in references, public speeches, statements addressed to various organizations and officials, or communication in another form, including orally, to several persons or at least one person.
Defamatory information means information that does not correspond to reality and diminishes the honor and dignity of a citizen or organization in the public opinion or in the opinion of individual citizens from the perspective of compliance with laws and moral principles of society (for example, information about the commission of a dishonest act, unworthy behavior in a work collective or family; information discrediting production and economic activities, reputation, etc.).
Honor is the public assessment of a person, a measure of his or her spiritual and social qualities.
Dignity is a person’s internal assessment of his or her own qualities, abilities, worldview and social significance.
Business reputation is a stable positive assessment by public opinion of a person’s business (production and professional) qualities.
Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Regulatory Resolution, when considering civil cases initiated on the grounds and in accordance with the procedure provided for by Articles 141 and 143 of the Civil Code and Articles 23 and 150 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court must establish whether the information whose refutation is claimed was disseminated, whether it discredits the honor and dignity of the citizen or the reputation of the organization, and whether such information corresponds to reality.
It follows from a literal interpretation of this provision that the basis for protection of honor, dignity and business reputation is the combination of all three of the above conditions, namely, the information must be defamatory in nature, it must have been disseminated, and it must not correspond to reality.
Under the applicable legislation, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the fact that the information was disseminated by the Defendant, as well as that such information discredits the business reputation, honor and dignity of the Plaintiff.
The burden of proving that information discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation corresponds to reality rests with the person who disseminated it.
At the same time, during the court proceedings, the Defendant заявлено о применении последствий пропуска срока исковой давности.
Pursuant to Article 38 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mass Media” (hereinafter – the Law), which entered into force on August 20, 2024, the limitation period for claims brought against mass media is one year from the date of publication of the disputed information in the mass media.
Pursuant to Article 4 of the Civil Code, acts of civil legislation do not have retroactive effect and apply only to relations arising after their entry into force.
In relation to relations that arose before an act of civil legislation entered into force, it applies to rights and obligations arising after its entry into force.
The Court proceeds from the fact that the one-year limitation period applies in connection with the violation of the right to refutation, the right to reply, as well as the right to compensation for losses and moral harm.
The Court considers that the violation of the said rights occurs only after the mass media fails to respond to a pre-trial claim within the one-month period established by law, or refuses to exercise these rights.
Consequently, although the limitation period is calculated from the date of publication of the disputed information in the mass media, it applies to relations arising not at the time of the disputed publication, but only after a pre-trial claim has been submitted to the mass media.
This position is based on the provisions of Article 38 of the Law, as well as part 2 of Article 4 of the Civil Code.
Thus, if the pre-trial claim was received by the mass media after August 20, 2024, the Court will consider the one-year limitation period applicable. Since more than twelve years had elapsed from the date of publication of the disputed information until the date the claim was filed with the court.
In the present case, the pre-trial claim was sent on December 10, 2025.
Pursuant to part 6 of Article 172 of the Civil Code, if the limitation period has been missed, the judge may render a decision refusing the claim without examining other factual circumstances of the case.
Pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 6 of Article 172 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the CPC), a preliminary court hearing is held for procedural consolidation of the actions of the parties, as well as for establishing the facts of expiration of the periods for applying to court and the limitation periods.
If the limitation period or the period for applying to court has been missed without valid reasons, the judge renders a decision refusing the claim without examining other factual circumstances.
The fact that the limitation period has been missed is established on the basis of the Plaintiff’s motion to restore the missed period or the Defendant’s motion to apply the limitation period.
Pursuant to part 3 of Article 179 of the Civil Code, expiration of the limitation period before the filing of a claim constitutes grounds for the court to render a decision refusing the claim.
The Court finds the Plaintiff’s arguments that the limitation period should be calculated from 2023 to be unfounded.
The materials submitted by the Defendants, namely a copy of correspondence on the Instagram social network from 2020 and the official letter of TOO “Effective Media Liaison” dated October 19, 2020 No. 1-223, reliably establish that Plaintiff IA B. was not only aware of the content of the publications but also personally confirmed their accuracy by using these materials for her professional interests.
Pursuant to Article 72 of the CPC, the Plaintiff’s side failed to submit to the Court any reliable and admissible evidence refuting the Defendant’s arguments.
The case file contains no documents from law enforcement authorities confirming the fact of unlawful access to an information system or hacking of an account, nor medical conclusions, certificates or other expert documents evidencing the existence, during the relevant period, of illnesses or mental disorders preventing the Plaintiff from exercising her right to judicial protection.
Thus, the Plaintiff’s statements concerning the existence of circumstances preventing the timely filing of the claim are unsupported and cannot be accepted by the Court as valid reasons for restoring the limitation period.
Under these circumstances, the Court, taking into account the absence of evidence confirming valid reasons for missing the limitation period and the established fact that the Plaintiff was aware of the publications as early as 2020, applies the consequences of expiration of the limitation period, which constitutes an independent and sufficient ground for refusing the claim.
Pursuant to Article 109 of the CPC, in the event of refusal to satisfy the claims, court costs shall not be reimbursed.
Guided by Articles 223–226 of the CPC, the Court,
DECIDED:
To refuse to satisfy the claim of IAB against the Limited Liability Partnership “Effective Media Liaison” concerning recognition of information as not corresponding to reality and defamatory of honor, dignity and business reputation, recovery of compensation for moral harm and expenses incurred.
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
