THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION OF JUDGES’ RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR DIGNITY AND HONOR, RIGHT TO INVIOLABILITY OF BUSINESS REPUTATION, VIOLATED IN MASS MEDIA

УДК 347.96/99-049.65:17.022.1:659.3

ORCID: 0000-0002-1259-4243

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2023-3(44)-2

PDF

Viktoriia KUCHERIAVENKO,

Doctor of Philosophy in Law, lawyer, teacher of the department of administrative law, intellectual property and civil law disciplines of the Kyiv University of Intellectual Property and Law of the National University «Odesa Law Academy»

THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION OF JUDGES’ RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR DIGNITY AND HONOR, RIGHT TO INVIOLABILITY OF BUSINESS REPUTATION, VIOLATED IN MASS MEDIA

The article is devoted to the study of the limits of protection of judges' right to respect for dignity and honor, the right to inviolability of business reputation violated in mass media.

Within the scope of the article, it is determined that the fact that judges belong to the category of «public figures» has a significant influence on the limits of the protection of judges' right to respect for dignity and honor, the right to inviolability of the business reputation. As well as opposing the relevant personal non-property rights of judges, a whole set of informational rights of society representatives and individual institutions (such as mass media). In order to find ways to balance competing rights, the materials of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights were analyzed. Based on the analysis of the precedent practice of the European Court of Human Rights, it was determined that the limits of the protection of the right of judges to respect for dignity and honor, the right to inviolability of business reputation should be such as to ensure free discussion of the actions of judges as persons who play a certain role in the life of society. Along with this, it is determined that the very fact that the judiciary as a whole and judges are open to close attention from the mass media, does not negate the aspect that the dissemination of any information about the activities of the judiciary and its representatives should be carried out responsibly and should not lead to the violation of borders, in particular regarding the right of judges to respect for dignity and honor, the right to inviolability of business reputation. Dissemination of false information, baseless accusations, personal attacks on judges have nothing to do with the media's right to freedom of expression.

Key words: personal non-property rights, dignity and honor of judges, business reputation of judges, protection of

References

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated from March 09, 2021 in the case «Benitez Moriana and Iñigo Fernandez v. Spain» (Аpplication no. 36537/15 and 36539/15). URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-208412 (access date: November, 2023)

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated from September 28, 2004 in the case of «Sabou and Pircalab v. Romania» (Аpplication no. 46572/99). URL: https:// hudoc. echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-66714 (access date: November, 2023) [french]

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated from April 26, 1995 in the case of «Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria» (Аpplication no. 15974/90). URL: https://ips. ligazakon.net/document/SO3353?ed=1995_04_26 (access date: November, 2023) [ukr.]

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated from April 16, 2019 in case of «Editorial board of Grivna newspaper v. Ukraine» (Аpplication no. 41214/08 and 49440/08). URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-195439 (access date: November, 2023) [ukr.]

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated from December 17, 2004 in case of «Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania» (Аpplication no. 33348/96). URL: https://ips. ligazakon.net/document/SO3351?an=325 (access date: November, 2023) [ukr.]

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated from July 8, 1986 in case of «Lingens v. Austria» (Аpplication no. 9815/82). URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ fre?i=001-100218 (access date: November, 2023) [ukr.]

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated from December 18, 2008 in case of «Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan» (Аpplication no. 35877/04). URL: https:// hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-90356 (access date: November, 2023)

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated from February 22, 1989 in case of «Barfod v. Denmark» (Аpplication no. 11508/85). URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe. int/eng?i=001-57430 (access date: November, 2023)

Pilkov K. «How to criticize a judge? – How?? Criticize a judge?». URL: https:// vn. arbitr.gov.ua/press/interview/392691/. (access date: November, 2023) [ukr.]

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated from February 24, 1997 in case of «De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium» (Аpplication no. 19983/92). URL: https://hudoc. echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-117714 (access date: November, 2023) [ukr.]