Compensation for non-pecuniary damage as a way of judicial protection against defamation in Russia and England

Defamation law originated and developed in England (England and Wales). Further, it became widespread not only in the countries of Anglo-Saxon, but also Romano-Germanic law, including Russia. One of the effective civil law methods of judicial protection against defamatory tort aimed at belittling honor, dignity and business reputation in Russia is compensation for moral damage - an analogue of British compensatory damages for non-pecuniary harm, awarded for “pain and suffering ”(pain and suffering) in the form of emotional disorders (emotional distress). The digital revolution brought with it new types of defamation tort, which became a kind of trigger for further improvement of defamation law, the need to increase the effectiveness of judicial protection against defamation through compensation for moral damage.

Purpose: to identify and analyze the extent to which English defamation law is implemented by Russian legislation, to determine the most effective model for determining the amount of compensation for moral damage for defamation.

Methods: dialectical, formal-logical and other general scientific research methods; special legal methods: comparative legal and formal legal.

Findings: The concept of defamation is identical to the dissemination of untrue defamatory information, as well as any untrue information about a citizen contained in Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The owners of social networks, in addition to the author of the publication, should bear civil liability for the dissemination of defamatory information as a publisher who has not taken effective measures to remove it in a timely manner. In Russia, it is necessary to legislatively introduce the concept of presumed moral harm, fixing its size in a special table approved and annually updated by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In Russia, it is necessary to refuse innocent compensation for moral damage for defamation (Article 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In the event of a defamatory tort in relation to the deceased who had a profile on a social network and received a public projection as a result, their heirs have the right to file defamation claims and demand refutation and compensation for moral damage. 

1. Archiereev N.V. On the issue of the essence of defamation on the example of a comparative analysis of the legal regulation of defamation in England, the USA, Israel and Russia // Lawyer. 2016. № 16. Pp.36-41.

2. Bogdanov D.E. Technodeterminism in private law: the impact of bioprinting on the development of the concept of protecting the right to a digital image // Bulletin of Perm University. Legal sciences. 2020. Issue. 50. Pp. 678–704.

3. Belyatskin S.A. Compensation for moral (non property) harm. M., 1996.

4. Belyavsky A.V., Pridvorov N.A. Protection of the honor and dignity of the individual in the USSR. M., 1971.

5. Budylin S.L. Pain and Suffering in Common Law Countries. Price list or judicial discretion? // Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation. 2020. № 3. Pp. 78-98. 11 College, Judicial. Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases. 15th ed., Oxford University Press, 2020

6. Gadzhiev G.A. Principles of justice and trust in the court as fundamental principles of private law // Bulletin of economic justice. 2017. № 4. Pp. 65-87.

7. Egorova M.A., Krylov V.G., Romanov A.K. Delicate obligations and tort liability in English, German and French law: a tutorial / Ed. M.A. Egorova. M., 2017.

8. Ibragimova A.I. Certain problems of determining the amount of damage to be compensated in Russian civil law // Russian justice. 2018. № 4. Pp. 9-13.

9. Kirilenko V.PP., Alekseev G.V. Problems of harmonization of European and Russian legislation on defamation. Lex russica (Russian law). 2019. № 1 (9). Pp. 168-182.

10. Cross R. Precedent in English law / Rupert Cross / Ed. F.M. Reshetnikov. M., 1985.

11. Parygina N.N. Compensation for moral damage in defamation against a citizen // Judge. 2018. № 10. Pp. 24-27.

12. Prokhorenko D.V. Responsibility of information intermediaries for defamation on the Internet // Journal of the Intellectual Property Rights Court. 2020. № 27. Pp. 74-94.

13. Spano R. Responsibility of the information intermediary for the comments of an online user in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights // International Justice. 2017. № 2 (22). Pp. 28–41.

14. Erdelevsky A.M. Compensation for non pecuniary damage. M., 2007.

15. David Mangan. The Relationship Between Defamation, Breach of Privacy and Other Legal Claims Involving Offensive Internet Content (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, July 2017).

16. Joyce Daniel. Data Associations and the Protection of Reputation Online in Australia // Big Data & Society, June 2017.

17. Handford PP.R. Moral Damage in Germany. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1978. № 27(4). Pp. 849-875.

18. Joseph H. King Jr. Pain and Suffering, Noneconomic Damages, and the Goals of Tort Law. 57 SMU L. Rev. 163. 2004 // https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol57/iss1/8.

19. Karen M. Markin Libel and the Lab: Scientists and Defamation // Communication Law and Policy. 2021. Vol. 26. Pp. 1-31.

20. Reform of the Law of Defamation // Current Legal Problems. 1976. Vol. 29. Issue 1. Pp. 183–204.

21. Matthew Collins. The Law of Defamation and The Internet (3rd. ed.) // Oxford University Press. Inc., USA. 2011.

22. Mitchell Paul. The Making of the Modern Law of Defamation. London // Hart Publishing, 2005. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 10 Mar. 2021 // http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781472559739.

23. Mullis Alastair and Andrew Scott. Tilting at Windmills: The Defamation Act 2013 // The Modern Law Review. 2014. Vol. 77. № 1. Pp. 87–109.

24. Nikonov S.B., Baichik A.V., Puiy A.S., Labush N.S. Noopolitical Aspect of Political Defamation // European Journal of Science and Theology. 2015. Vol. 11. № 5. Pp. 265-274.

25. Potapenko S.V. Honor, Dignity and Business Reputation as Objects of the Protective Civil Law Relations in their Judicial Protection Against Defamation // Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics [Online]. 2016. № 7.6. Pp. 1471-1479.

26. Stephen Bates, Libel Capital No More? Reforming British Defamation Law, 34 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 233. 2012. Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_comm_ent_la w_journal/vol34/iss2/3.

27. Slavko Anna, et al. Protection of One’s Honor, Dignity, and Business Reputation on Social Networks: Issues and Ways to Resolve Them // International Journal of Media and Information Literacy. 2020. Vol. 5. № 2. Pp. 205–216.

28. Seubert S. & Becker C. The Democratic Impact of Strengthening European Fundamental Rights in the Digital Age: The Example of Privacy Protection // German Law Journal. 2021. № 22 (1). Pp. 31-44.