Protection of the honor and dignity of public figures in Ukraine: legal challenges and complexities of the digital era

Tag

Publications

17 Feb, 2025

Protecting the honor, dignity, and business reputation of public figures in Ukraine is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires consideration of national and international legal norms. Politicians, businesspeople, cultural figures, and other well-known personalities are constantly under public scrutiny. While criticism is inherent to democratic society, it sometimes crosses the line, damaging reputations and personal rights.

The rapid development of digital technologies has fundamentally transformed the information landscape. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allow information to spread instantly and across borders. False information can severely damage a public figure’s reputation within hours or even minutes. At the same time, traditional legal mechanisms, such as lawsuits, are often too slow to respond to such challenges effectively.

This article explores the legal mechanisms that safeguard reputations and demonstrates how legal expertise can serve as a guiding light in the turbulent waters of public life in the digital world.

Protection of the Right to Honor and Dignity of Public Figures

Honor and dignity reflect a person's moral and ethical evaluation. In Ukrainian legislation, these concepts are enshrined as personal non-property rights subject to protection. Article 32 of the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees everyone the right to dignity and prohibits disseminating confidential information without consent. These principles are further detailed in Articles 297 and 299 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which provide individuals with the right to demand the retraction of false information, its removal, and compensation for moral damages. Additionally, the Law of Ukraine "On Information" establishes liability for spreading false information, serving as an essential tool in combating disinformation.

The situation is more complex for public figures due to their societal roles. On the one hand, they have the right to protect their honor and dignity. On the other hand, their activities are of public interest, which may justify increased scrutiny and criticism. However, this does not mean that their honor and dignity are unprotected. In cases where false information is disseminated in a way that undermines their reputation, public figures have the right to seek legal protection.

Judicial Practice: The Balance Test Between Freedom of Speech and Reputation Protection

Ukrainian courts increasingly consider the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In its ruling of January 17, 2020, in case No. 343/1867/17, the Supreme Court emphasised that to hold someone liable for disseminating false information, malicious intent must be proven. This reflects the courts’ efforts to protect freedom of speech while leaving room for reputation protection.

In the ECtHR case Oberschlick v. Austria (1997), the court underscored that the limits of permissible criticism are broader for public figures. However, this does not eliminate their right to protection against baseless attacks.

To achieve a balance between the right to privacy and freedom of expression, or between freedom of speech and mass information, courts apply the so-called balance test, which involves a structured evaluation of competing interests based on the following criteria:

Contribution of the disputed publication to a discussion of public interest
The notoriety of the person concerned and whether they are a public figure
The subject of the publication and whether it is related to the public figure’s role
The behaviour of the concerned individual before publication
The method of obtaining the information and its reliability
The severity of any imposed sanctions or civil liability

This approach is applied in ECtHR case law and in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (Supreme Court ruling of March 20, 2019, in case No. 161/19019/17, and ruling of August 19, 2020, in case No. 446/1953/16-c).

Special Legal Remedies for Public Figures to Protect Honor, Dignity, and Reputation

Protecting one’s reputation in the digital era requires a proactive approach. Public figures should regularly monitor the information space to identify threats promptly.

Key legal remedies include:

Right to reply (Part 1, Article 277 of the Civil Code of Ukraine)
Retraction of false information (Part 1, Article 277 of the Civil Code of Ukraine)
Legal recognition of the inaccuracy of disseminated information and its retraction through separate proceedings (Part 4, Article 277 of the Civil Code of Ukraine)
Prohibition of further dissemination of defamatory content (Article 278 of the Civil Code of Ukraine)
Compensation for moral damages (Article 22 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) in cases where subjective opinions are expressed in a gross, offensive, or indecent manner that degrades dignity, honor, or business reputation.

In cases of false information dissemination, a combination of legal strategies is recommended, including:

Filing lawsuits for retractions and compensation
Utilizing extrajudicial mechanisms, such as complaints to social media platforms

Many platforms, such as YouTube and LinkedIn, have procedures for removing content that violates personal rights, and we have experience successfully utilizing these tools. Another non-jurisdictional method of defending the right to honor, dignity, and reputation is submitting a complaint to the Journalistic Ethics Commission.

Conclusion

Protecting the honor, dignity, and business reputation of public figures in Ukraine is a delicate art of balancing legal norms, public interests, and the realities of the digital world. Ukrainian law provides mechanisms for defending against defamation and spreading false information. At the same time, adequate judicial protection in this area requires a nuanced approach that considers international standards, ensuring that neither defamation goes unpunished, nor freedom of speech is unjustly restricted.

A well-executed legal strategy can be decisive for maintaining public trust, safeguarding one’s good name, and mitigating reputational risks.

Sources: