To declare information expressed in one sentence unreliable, it is necessary to evaluate it in the context of the entire publication - CCC of the Supreme Court

When deciding whether to declare information in the form of a single sentence in a publication unreliable and refute it, the court must assess the content and focus of the entire publication (its context). A single sentence should not be taken out of the context of the entire publication when refuting it.

This conclusion was made by the Supreme Court as part of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court in a case on a claim for protection of honour, dignity and business reputation, obligation to refute information, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

The plaintiff claimed that in an interview with a TV channel, a member of the Ukrainian parliament had provided false information about him that defamed his honour, dignity and business reputation. This information was disseminated in videos and articles on the Internet. The defendants in the dispute were the author of the statements and the TV and radio organisation that broadcast the relevant programme.

The court of first instance granted the claim. The court of appeal reversed this decision, stating that not all statements can be the subject of a violation of a person's honour, dignity and business reputation. The court of appeal found that only one statement was unreliable and defamatory of the plaintiff's honour, dignity and business reputation, and therefore subject to refutation, as it contained both a statement about a specific circumstance and a negative statement, the reliability of which would have to be proved in the course of the case.

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court cancelled the previous court decisions in the contested part and dismissed the claim in this part.

The Supreme Court pointed out that such a conclusion of the courts was erroneous, since the court actually ordered the defendant to refute information about other persons who are essentially referred to in the context of the entire publication, i.e. persons who are not parties to this case and who did not apply to the court for protection of their rights and interests.

By recognising part of the defendant's statement as value judgments and the other as factual statements, the appellate court did not take into account the true meaning of the statement as a whole, its context, and its overall direction. 

In his substantive statements, the defendant repeatedly drew the courts' attention to these circumstances, but the courts did not provide a proper legal assessment of his arguments. In addition, the defendant argued that the statements disputed by the plaintiff were taken out of the context of the entire publication, they were solely criticism of the activities and assessment of the actions of other public figures and did not concern the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court agreed with such arguments of the cassation appeal, since, recognising the information in the form of one sentence as unreliable and refuting it, the court did not pay attention to the fact that the court must take into account and assess the content and focus of the entire publication (its context). Therefore, one sentence should not be ‘torn’ out of the context of the entire publication when refuting it.

The court of cassation noted that the sentence containing the information recognised by the court of appeal as unreliable did not contain any factual data regarding the plaintiff's actions, the manner or method of committing the unlawful acts. Thus, the use of the words ‘some’ and ‘dereban’ (translator's note: the informal word denotes the process of distributing public or state-owned resources among a narrow circle of the elite, serving their private interests at the expense of the public interest) indicates that the author of the information expresses his opinion to draw attention to an issue of public interest, rather than stating a fact.

The panel of judges also emphasised that the plaintiff's public status and the public interest regarding him in the performance of his duties indicate wider limits of permissible criticism of him.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of 15 May 2024 in case No. 757/17241/21-ц (proceedings No. 61-16303св23) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/119069771.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.