On the Recognition of Information Disseminated and Published by a News Outlet as False and Damaging to Honour and Business Reputation
On 26 May 2025, District Court No. 2 of the Almaly District of the City of Almaty, composed of Presiding Judge A.B. U.., with O.E. Zhalgasov acting as the court hearing secretary, considered, in an open court hearing, the civil case concerning the claim brought by BAM against the defendant, Limited Liability Partnership “E M L” (hereinafter referred to as the “LLP”).
CLAIMANT’S REQUESTS:
- To declare that the information disseminated and published by the Limited Liability Partnership “...” in the article entitled “Director of a Car Dealership in Almaty Cheated Customers Out of Half a Million Dollars”, dated 21 June 2014, is false and damaging to the honour and business reputation of BAM.
- To oblige the Limited Liability Partnership “....” to publish a retraction of the article dated 21 June 2014.
- To oblige the Limited Liability Partnership “....” to remove the electronic version of the article dated 21 June 2014 from the website www.tengrinews.kz.
- To recover compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of KZT 1,000,000.
On 21 June 2014, an article entitled “Director of a Car Dealership in Almaty Cheated Customers Out of Half a Million Dollars” was published on the website “Tengrinews.kz”, which is owned by the LLP “....
Having clarified his claims, the claimant applied to the court with the above-mentioned requests, arguing that the defendant had disseminated information that was false and damaging to his business reputation.
Accordingly, the claimant asked the court to declare the following information disseminated and published by the defendant on the website tengrinews.kz in the article entitled “Director of a Car Dealership in Almaty Cheated Customers Out of Half a Million Dollars” on 21 June 2014 to be false and damaging to the claimant’s honour, dignity and business reputation:
- “A high-profile trial began in Almaty on Wednesday. In the dock is A.B., director of the ‘Alsheikhmotors’ car dealership, who ‘ripped off’ his customers to the tune of half a million dollars, reports KTK television channel. He faces up to seven years in prison on fraud charges.”
- “The businessman promised to bring foreign-made cars from the United Arab Emirates, entered into contracts and collected advance payments, but failed to fulfil his promises.”
- “There are 37 people among those he allegedly defrauded. And these are only those who contacted the police.”
The claimant also asked the court to oblige the defendant, within seven days after the court decision entered into legal force, to publish on the website www.tengrinews.kz, without the right to remove it, a retraction of the article dated 21 June 2014 entitled “Director of a Car Dealership in Almaty Cheated Customers Out of Half a Million Dollars”.
The article was published at the following link:
https://tengrinews.kz/crime/direktoravtosalona-almatyi-obmanul-klientov-polmilliona256904/amp/
The claimant requested that the retraction state that the following information contained in the article was false:
“A high-profile trial began in Almaty on Wednesday. In the dock is A. B., director of the ‘Alsheikhmotors’ car dealership, who ‘ripped off’ his customers to the tune of half a million dollars, reports KTK television channel. He faces up to seven years in prison on fraud charges.
The businessman promised to bring foreign-made cars from the United Arab Emirates, entered into contracts and collected advance payments, but failed to fulfil his promises.
There are 37 people among those he allegedly defrauded. And these are only those who contacted the police.”
The claimant further requested that the defendant be ordered to remove the electronic version of the article entitled “Director of a Car Dealership in Almaty Cheated Customers Out of Half a Million Dollars” from the website www.tengrinews.kz.
The claimant’s representative, M. A., supported the claims and, having clarified them, also requested that the court award compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of KZT 1,000,000. He asked the court to grant the claim in full.
The defendant’s representatives, A.A. B. and S.Kh. Z., contested the claim, arguing that the publication had not resulted in any adverse consequences and that the LLP “...” was not the original source of the information disseminated in the media. They requested that the limitation period be applied to the claimant’s claims, that the claim be dismissed, and that the claimant be ordered to reimburse the defendant’s legal representation expenses.
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 143 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Code”), a citizen is entitled to seek, through judicial proceedings, the retraction of information damaging to their honour, dignity or business reputation.
According to the clarifications contained in paragraph 1 of Regulatory Resolution No. 6 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 18 December 1992, “On the Application in Judicial Practice of Legislation on the Protection of the Honour, Dignity and Business Reputation of Individuals and Legal Entities” (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulatory Resolution”), the dissemination of information damaging to the honour and dignity of a citizen or an organisation means publication in the press, broadcasting on radio or television, dissemination through other mass media, inclusion in references and character assessments, statements made in public, applications addressed to various organisations or officials, or communication in any other form, including orally, to several persons or even to one person.
Information damaging to honour and dignity is understood to mean information that is false and diminishes the honour and dignity of a citizen or an organisation in public opinion or in the opinion of individual citizens, particularly from the perspective of compliance with laws and society’s moral principles. Such information may include allegations of dishonest conduct, unworthy behaviour in the workplace or within the family, or information damaging to a person’s production, business or professional activities and reputation.
Honour is the public assessment of a person and the measure of their moral and social qualities.
Dignity is a person’s internal assessment of their own qualities, abilities, worldview and significance in society.
Business reputation is the stable positive assessment by public opinion of a person’s business, production or 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 in 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 sought to be retracted was disseminated, whether it damages the honour and dignity of a citizen or the reputation of an organisation, and whether such information is true.
A literal interpretation of this provision indicates that the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation requires the presence of all three of the above-mentioned conditions. In other words, the information must be damaging, must have been disseminated, and must be false.
Under the applicable legislation, the claimant bears the burden of proving that the defendant disseminated the information and that such information damages the claimant’s business reputation, honour and dignity.
The burden of proving the truthfulness of information damaging to honour, dignity and business reputation rests with the person who disseminated it.
It follows from the case materials that, on 21 June 2014, an article entitled “Director of a Car Dealership in Almaty Cheated Customers Out of Half a Million Dollars” was published on the website owned by the LLP “.....” at:
https://tengrinews.kz/crime/direktor-avtosalona-almatyi-obmanul-klientov-polmilliona-256904/amp/
During the court hearing, it was established that KTK television channel was the original source of the information concerning the claimant. The defendant was neither the author nor the original source of the disputed information but merely published it with a reference to its source.
The article contains information about the claimant which, according to the claimant, is false and damaging to his honour, dignity and business reputation.
The publication reads as follows:
“A high-profile trial began in Almaty on Wednesday.
In the dock is A.B., director of the ‘Alsheikhmotors’ car dealership, who ‘ripped off’ his customers to the tune of half a million dollars, reports KTK television channel. He faces up to seven years in prison on fraud charges.
The businessman promised to bring foreign-made cars from the United Arab Emirates, entered into contracts and collected advance payments, but failed to fulfil his promises.
There are 37 people among those he allegedly defrauded. And these are only those who contacted the police.”
In fact, by a judgment of the Almaly District Court of the City of Almaty dated 12 January 2015, the claimant was found guilty of committing a criminal offence under subparagraph “b” of part 4 of Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment, with confiscation of property.
By a ruling of the Judicial Panel for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court dated 12 June 2015, the judgment was amended with respect to certain episodes concerning civil claims, while the remainder of the judgment was upheld without amendment.
Pursuant to part 3 of Article 76 of the Civil Procedure Code, a judgment that has entered into legal force is binding upon a court considering a civil case and applies to the establishment of the facts concerning the commission of acts, their legal assessment and other circumstances reflected in that judgment.
According to paragraph 11 of the Regulatory Resolution, where the information damaging to the claimant has been recognised by a court as true, or where the disseminated information is not damaging, claims for its retraction are not subject to satisfaction.
The claimant was convicted by a court of committing a criminal offence, as confirmed by a judgment that entered into legal force.
In this regard, the court considers that the information disseminated by the defendant had a factual basis.
At the same time, pursuant to Article 38 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mass Media” (hereinafter referred to as the “Law”), which entered into force on 20 August 2024, the limitation period for claims brought against mass media is one year from the date on which the disputed information was published in the mass media.
Pursuant to Article 4 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, acts of civil legislation do not have retroactive effect and apply only to relations arising after their entry into force.
With respect to relations that arose before an act of civil legislation entered into force, that act applies to rights and obligations arising after its entry into force.
The court proceeds on the basis that the one-year limitation period applies to claims arising from the infringement of the right to a retraction, the right of reply, and the right to compensation for losses and non-pecuniary damage.
The court considers that an infringement of these rights occurs only after the mass media outlet has failed to respond to a pre-trial claim within the one-month period prescribed by law or has refused to provide the relevant remedies.
Consequently, although the limitation period is calculated from the date on which the disputed information was published in the mass media, it applies to legal relations arising not at the time of the disputed publication itself, but only after a pre-trial claim has been submitted to the mass media outlet.
This position is based on Article 38 of the Law and part 2 of Article 4 of the Civil Code.
Accordingly, if the pre-trial claim was received by the mass media outlet after 20 August 2024, the court will consider the one-year limitation period applicable.
In the present case, more than ten years elapsed between the date of publication of the disputed information and the date on which the claim was filed with the court.
The pre-trial claim in this case was sent on 10 January 2025.
Pursuant to part 6 of Article 172 of the Civil Procedure Code, where the limitation period has expired, the judge may issue a decision dismissing the claim without examining the other factual circumstances of the case.
According to paragraphs 1 and 6 of Article 172 of the Civil Procedure Code, a preliminary court hearing is held to formally record the procedural actions of the parties and to establish whether the time limits for applying to the court and the limitation periods have been missed.
If the limitation period or the time limit for applying to the court has been missed without valid reasons, the judge shall issue a decision dismissing the claim without examining the other factual circumstances of the case.
The fact that the limitation period has expired is established on the basis of an application by the claimant to restore the missed period or an application by the defendant seeking the application of the limitation period.
Pursuant to part 3 of Article 179 of the Civil Code, the expiry of the limitation period before a claim is filed constitutes grounds for the court to issue a decision dismissing the claim.
The court takes into account that the claimant had been aware of the disputed publications since 2014, as the defendant’s material was based on a publication by KTK television channel dated 11 June 2014, available at the following link:
https://www.ktk.kz/ru/news/video/2014/06/11/28373/
The court does not accept the claimant’s assertion that he only became aware of the publication in December 2024, since the claimant failed to provide evidence supporting that assertion.
In these circumstances, the court considers the defendant’s application for the application of the limitation period to be justified and subject to satisfaction, which, in turn, entails dismissal of the claimant’s claim.
Pursuant to Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code, where the claims are dismissed, court costs shall not be reimbursed.
Having been guided by Articles 223–226 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court
HEREBY RULES:
To dismiss the claim brought by BAM against the Limited Liability Partnership “E” seeking:
- a declaration that the information disseminated in the article dated 21 June 2014 was false and damaging to the honour, dignity and business reputation of BAM;
- an order requiring the Limited Liability Partnership “eee” to publish a retraction of the article dated 21 June 2014;
- an order requiring the removal of the electronic version of the article dated 21 June 2014 from the website; and
- recovery of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of KZT 1,000,000.
Translator’s note: The translation preserves the substance and structure of the Russian-language text. The original contains inconsistencies in the defendant’s name and abbreviations, as well as references to statutory provisions and court decisions that may require verification. Before using this document in court proceedings or for other official purposes, the names of the parties, statutory references and operative part of the judgment should be checked against the original court decision.
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
