Judicial practice in cases on the dissemination of unreliable information

Abstract

Introduction. Article 34 of the Constitution of Ukraine states that everyone has the right to freely store, collect, disseminate and use information in writing, orally or otherwise. However, such infor­mation must be disseminated in compliance with regulations on its authenticity and not to tarnish the dignity, honor, business reputation of others.
Problem. The right to freedom of speech often conflicts with the interests of individuals and society. In this regard, restrictive legal mechanisms are of particular importance.
The aіm of the artіcle is to reveal the sub­stantive aspects of the concept of «unreliable information» and analysis of case law to prevent its dissemination.
Methods. The methodological basis of the article is a number of philosophical, general scientific, special scientific principles and methods: dialectical, comparative analysis, system, analysis and synthesis, formal and legal.
Results. In civil proceedings, the most common mistakes made by plaintiffs in defending their non-property rights are failure to prove the fact that the spread of inaccurate information harms the relevant personal non-property rights or prevents them from exercising them fully and in a timely manner; links to messages that contain evaluative judgments; choosing the wrong method of protection. Judicial practice of consideration of cases under art. 173-1 of the Code of admi­nist­rative offenses allowed to single out the problems of its law enforcement – inadequate legal assessment or incomplete establishment of the circumstances of the case by the courts; ambiguity of the established motives for the message
Conclusіons. Responsibility for the disseminationof inaccurate information, taking into account case law, can be improved by: the validity of court decisions on the need for each of the methods of legal protection of subjects; clear definition in the legislation of the concept of «unreliable infor­mation»;in consideration of cases under Art. 173-1 of the Code of administrative offenses, courts must ensure the same assessment of the same circum­stances of the case in order to ensure the unity of the judiciary; addition to Article 278 of the CCU.