With the adoption of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On the Protection of Personal Rights” dated December 24, 2025, the Plenum Resolution dated May 14, 1999 “On the Practice of Application by Courts of Legislation on the Protection of Honor and Dignity”, which was previously widely used in the regulation of court disputes, has been repealed.
Elchi.az reports that, unlike the previous Plenum Resolution, the new resolution covers honor, dignity, and business reputation with new concepts, separating them from each other and from the right to personal inviolability:
“Dignity is the moral value that an individual possesses from the moment of birth because of being human.
Honor is the value that an individual gains in society based on moral qualities, moral and ethical principles that he/she adheres to in public and personal behavior.
Business reputation is the opinion formed in society about the entrepreneurial or other professional activity of an individual or legal entity.
The subject scope of business reputation has been expanded, and in addition to legal entities and individual entrepreneurs, public figures, lawyers, notaries, auditors, appraisers, scientists, educators, and other persons engaged in professional activities are also included in this category.
Business reputation arises not from the moment a natural person starts professional activity, acquires the status of an entrepreneur, or is registered as a legal entity, but only after gaining trust in connection with the activities carried out over a certain period.
While individuals can demand compensation for both moral and material damage for the dissemination of information that tarnishes their business reputation, legal entities cannot demand moral damage. Damage to their business reputation can only result in material damage.
A person’s honor and business reputation can be tarnished by information, expressions, or actions. Expressions and actions that tarnish a person’s honor and dignity are the use of offensive words and actions against the person. Information that tarnishes a person’s honor, dignity, and business reputation can be both oral and written (text, picture, caricature, audio, video, etc.).
The tarnishing of a person’s honor and business reputation is conditioned by the joint existence of 3 conditions: first, the information, offensive expression, or action must tarnish the person’s honor, dignity, and business reputation; second, such information, expression, or action must be disseminated; third, if the tarnishing is related to the dissemination of information, that information must be false.”
Information that tarnishes business reputation should also be aimed at creating a negative opinion among third parties about a person’s business activities and the quality of those activities.
Unlike honor and business reputation, the humiliation of dignity is possible even without dissemination. That is, the above-mentioned information, expressions, and actions, even if communicated to the person alone without the participation of anyone, can result in the humiliation of dignity, and a civil claim can be filed on this basis.
The dissemination or communication to a person of information indicating the person’s guilt without a court’s conviction that has entered into legal force is prohibited, and these actions violate the presumption of innocence. The right to protect this right and the right to claim compensation for moral damage arising from its violation arises from the moment of violation, and the subsequent issuance and entry into legal force of a conviction against the person does not prevent this right.
Criticism, evaluative opinions, and information of a deliberative nature made by one person to the other party are not considered a violation. In this case, the information must reflect the author’s subjective assessment and not describe any fact. (for example, a person stating that the selling price of food purchased in one of the entertainment centers is expensive for him/her is considered criticism and deliberation and does not degrade business reputation. However, a person stating untrue facts that food actually sold at a low price in the entertainment center is sold to tourists at many times the price, and that they evade taxes by paying taxes from the low selling price, is considered information that degrades business reputation). It should also be noted that even if the information does not describe facts, if it is expressed in a manner that degrades honor and dignity, i.e., in an ironic, offensive form, intentionally, with malicious intent (to discredit the person in society or in the collective, etc.) or with the purpose of harming the other party, it may cause the tarnishing of honor, dignity, and business reputation.
In addition, everyone has the right to address a complaint or other appeal of accusatory nature to the competent authority in order to restore their violated rights regarding the illegal, including criminal, actions of another person. Such appeals also do not degrade honor and dignity and do not tarnish business reputation. However, the content of such appeals should not be expressed in a manner that clearly degrades the person’s honor and dignity, i.e., in an offensive form, and the appeals should not go beyond the scope of issues within the competence of the authority to which they are addressed. For example, a person, in order to protect his/her rights, complained to law enforcement agencies about his/her neighbor, demanding that a legal assessment be given to his/her illegal actions and that he/she be brought to criminal responsibility for these actions, and at the same time, included false information about his/her extramarital affairs in his/her appeal. Although the person’s responsibility for the first part of the appeal is excluded, the second part will be considered an unlawful interference with the other party’s honor and dignity.
For the first time in the Plenum Resolution, public figures have been distinguished from other individuals. It has been declared that public figures should show more tolerance towards critical and sometimes very harsh, ironic, and seemingly offensive opinions that may affect honor, dignity, and business reputation in connection with their activities, and at the same time, the points to be taken into account when considering cases involving them have been clarified.
Appeals of a complaint nature made to higher authorities or relevant bodies from public figures, as well as critical opinions disseminated in media entities or social networks (critical and sometimes very harsh, ironic, and seemingly offensive in connection with their activities) are also not considered civil rights violations. However, such appeals and opinions should not be expressed in a manner that clearly degrades honor and dignity, i.e., in an offensive form, and there should be no false, accusatory information and expressions that clearly degrade honor and dignity, as well as are not related to the person’s public authority.
Unlike the previous Plenum Resolution, the new resolution gives a new definition to the act of dissemination and clarifies for the first time the role of media entities and their responsibility during dissemination.
Dissemination is the declaration of information or expressions to a third person or an indefinite circle of persons in a way that they can hear and perceive them, as well as the performance of actions in a way that those persons can see and perceive them.
The responsibility of media entities is also differentiated in the Plenum Resolution depending on whether the dissemination occurs through audio-video recording or live broadcast: if the dissemination is made through audio-video recording, the media entity is unequivocally responsible.
According to Article 77 of the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On Media”, the responsibility of the media entity is excluded when the dissemination occurs live. In this norm, live broadcast should be understood as an unplanned and unpredictable speech that has only been broadcast in one live broadcast.
If the speeches are broadcast in regularly live programs and in various issues that continue in a series, this norm will no longer apply, and in this case, the media body will be responsible. When the content of the program carries the risk of unlawful interference with personal rights, the media entity will not be responsible only if it warns the persons who will appear on live broadcast in advance in an understandable form about their responsibility for the expressions and information they will voice, as well as for the actions they will allow.
A person whose honor and dignity, business reputation have been degraded may file a claim in court for the purpose of establishing the violation, preventing the violation (preventing the dissemination of information, prohibiting it), eliminating the violation (refuting, deleting, correcting, or responding to the disseminated information, apologizing, publishing the court decision on the violation of rights in the media, etc.) and applying other methods.
Refutation is a statement that the information that violates the personal rights of a person disseminated in the presence of at least two people is not true. The text and method of refutation will be determined by the court, regardless of the content of the claim.
The deletion and correction of information is only possible on digital platforms, therefore, this method will not be applied to information published in print media.
Everyone has the right to respond to untrue information disseminated about him/her, that is, to express his/her attitude, and this can be applied as a method of defense based on the person’s request if this opportunity is not created.
The forced apology of individuals has been a subject of debate for a long time as a method of protecting honor and dignity, and there has been disagreement on this issue among both the legal community and the courts. While some lawyers argue that apology is the most effective method of defense in some cases, opponents consider forcing an individual to apologize as a degrading behavior towards that person.
A unified position on apology has been demonstrated by the newly adopted Plenum Resolution, and it has been concluded that Article 24 and 46 of the Constitution declare the protection of the dignity of the individual by the state, and it is prohibited for a person to be subjected to treatment or punishment that degrades human dignity. For this reason, the application of apology to individuals and legal entities is inadmissible, except in cases provided by law.
It should be specifically noted that no individual, legal entity, or state body can force an individual to apologize against his/her will for any act committed (civil, administrative, administrative offense, criminal, and other). Such coercion is considered a degrading treatment of human dignity and may cause moral damage to the person. If a claim is filed on this basis, it will not be sufficient for the person to state that he/she did it voluntarily when expressing an apology when determining the existence of coercion, the place, circumstances of the execution of the apology, the person’s emotional-psychological state at that time, as well as other circumstances of the case will be taken into account.
On the other hand, regardless of whether the apology is voluntary or forced, its dissemination by third parties or bodies in media entities, social networks, or other means is unlawful and may result in greater moral damage to that person in terms of mass character.
The exceptional cases provided by law are the laws “On Media” and “On Compensation for Damage Caused to Individuals as a Result of Illegal Actions of Investigation, Preliminary Investigation, Prosecutor’s Office and Court Bodies”.
Thus, the obligation to apologize may be imposed on media entities in the cases provided for in Article 18.1 of the Law “On Media”. It should be taken into account that in this case, the person who should respond to the claim is not the audiovisual (television, radio broadcasting, etc.), print (newspaper, magazine, etc.), online (website, etc.) media editorial offices, but the media entity itself. Although the obligation to apologize in such claims is imposed by the court on the individual or legal entity that is the media entity, the apology must be given on behalf of the relevant media editorial office where the information was disseminated, not on behalf of the entity itself.
According to the Law “On Compensation for Damage Caused to Individuals as a Result of Illegal Actions of Investigation, Preliminary Investigation, Prosecutor’s Office and Court Bodies”, a person who has been detained or involved as an accused person as a result of the mistake or abuse of these bodies may be apologized to in writing.
(nocomment.az)