<<
>>

the theory and practice of collecting of indemnification of non-material harm to legal bodies and individual businessmen.

The question on a State Tax paid at a petition of the requirement about indemnification of non-material harm to the legal person, sees quite fair to solve the same as and in a case claim giving about indemnification of moral harm to the citizen.

In this respect in and. 15 Decisions VS the Russian Federation from February, 24th, 2005 № 3 are defined, that moral harm though it and is defined by court in a concrete sum of money, admits the law harm non-property and, hence, the State Tax should be levied on the basis podp. Z item 1 of item 333.19 of the Tax code Russian Федерации334 (further - NK the Russian Federation), instead of in percentage terms to the sum defined by court as indemnification of moral harm caused to the claimant. In opinion on applicability of the made explanation and to indemnification of the non-material harm caused by belittling of business reputation of the legal person, many supporters of collecting such компенсации3 converge. According to podp. 4 items 1 of the item 333.21 NK the Russian Federation (edition of the Federal act from July, 21st, 2014 № 221-FZ) at giving of statements of claim of non-property character on the affairs considered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation according to the arbitration remedial legislation of the Russian Federation, and also on the affairs considered by arbitration courts, the State Tax is paid at a rate of 6 000 roubles. [351 [352]

By the way, podp. 4 items 1 of item 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation «About a State Tax» from December, 9th, 1991 № 2005-1 [353] [354] also were not connected by the size of a State Tax under claims about indemnification of moral harm with the sum of the declared requirements: for physical persons the payment sum constituted 10 percent from the minimum wage rate, and for legal - 10 minimum wage rates. Even during the stay of action of this law which has become invalid since January, 1st, 2005, in the legal literature offers on calculation of the sum of a State Tax under requirements expressed about

Indemnifications of moral harm with reference to rates for the material

357

CLAIMS 7.

In definition of the size of a State Tax under claims about indemnification of non-material harm legal persons on the same basis, as under claims about indemnification of moral harm to citizens, do not have anything contradicting the logician of the right and expediency of application of rules of law. At the same time it is not necessary to deny categorically and reasonings on a theme of possibility of calculation of the sum of a State Tax under recovery suits of indemnification of non-material harm to the organisations proceeding from the size of the requirements declared by the claimant. Such assumption sees justified because of the arising potential to stimulate the interested person to the most weighed definition of the claims. In this case followed, first, to allocate a rule about definition of the size of a State Tax under claims about indemnification of non-material harm to legal persons from the general rule about definition of the size of a State Tax at giving of statements of claim of non-property character (including statements of claim about indemnification of moral harm); and secondly, to provide availability of similar references to court, to establish due rupture between the sum of a recoverable State Tax and the size of requirements declared by the claimant.

If the reasonable parity is fixed between
In the size of requirements to the respondent and the size of a State Tax, last will not lay down on shoulders of the claimant burden of excessive expenditure at a filing of application in court, but at the same time will be in direct dependence on volume of its claims that is capable to become the impulsive cause more objectively to look on always to some extent subjectively estimated exemplary damages, more sensibly to judge the rights and another's korrespondirujushchih it duties instead of formulating the overestimated requirements (as it quite often happens in practice) by an auction principle in the market («ask more than wish to receive»), in hope to make certain impression upon court and to incline it to maximum - let even nezasluzhenno - to the decision favourable to.

By A.M.Erdelevsky it is developed a substantiated conclusion about possibility of offset and requirement transition about indemnification of moral harm (according to the author the concession of such requirement is admissible from the moment of becoming res judicata of the decree which have defined the size of indemnification, or from the moment of the conclusion prichinitelem harm and to victims of the agreement on voluntary indemnification of moral harm; requirement transition about indemnification of moral harm is by right of succession possible from the moment of a presentation of the corresponding claim in courts of justice that generates quantitatively uncertain property right, or from coming into force of the mentioned agreement prichinitelja harm with sustained) [355]. It is represented, that these reasonable reasonings at all do not contradict a rule of item 18 of Decision VS the Russian Federation from February, 24th, 2005 № 3 («indemnification of moral harm and losses in case of satisfaction of the claim come under to collecting in favour of the claimant, instead of other persons specified to it») and remain fair also in the appendix to indemnification of non-material harm to the organisations. Certainly, award of similar indemnification is in many respects caused by "individuality" of the legal person, unique characteristics of its business reputation, the status, activity, however indissoluble communication with the person
The creditor (a sign of the rights which transition to other persons is not supposed) to be established in this case it is impossible. A.M.Erdelevsky's statement that the right to indemnification as the high-grade property right comes in full volume only after the introduction of the decree into validity while to a reference to the court with the claim the victim has only preconditions for acquisition of a high-grade property right, but not it [356] is indisputable. And it is final, transition as the universal succession of to the full generated property right (the right to indemnification already awarded to the legal person) assumes presence at such legal person of assignees to whom its rights and a duty will pass after reorganisation.

K.I.Sklovsky writes thereupon the following. « End of liquidation of the legal person (the termination of the legal person, its exception of the register of legal bodies) means also the termination of the right to the indemnification and harm. First of all, because there is no victim but also and consequently, that the received sums cannot be directed on restoration of reputation of the organisation any more as the addressee of the sums has disappeared. And their direction for other needs deprives awarded of character of indemnification »[357]. It is impossible to deny that the right to the indemnification and indemnification of non-material harm stops with the organisation termination but only if last and has not declared the necessary requirement in court, - in this case assignees (by reorganisation) cannot make it for the pravopredshestvennika any more. If property inherently the requirement about indemnification of non-material harm has been formulated and, especially, if indemnification has already been awarded in favour of excluded of the register of legal persons of the claimant, assignees will have on it the right. Besides, given payment, apparently, nevertheless does not assume a special special-purpose designation: it is difficult to imagine the verified mechanism for the control over the use of the sums awarded to the claimant on restoration of the reputation, it is equal as difficultly to speak and about sense of introduction
Such control. Character of indemnification the award, it appears, has irrespectively that, how it will be used subsequently. (As freely sustained defines directions of use of a sum of money in the account of the losses put to it). This sum comes under to award under certain circumstances, for causing considered above non-material harm, it is property granting for negative a non-material sort influence of an offence on the rights and the blessings of the victim, "consolation" for it, in it and compensatory character of such payment is expressed; and on the contrary, it is not in dependence from ways of application by the claimant of the received means in further (whether it be carrying out of the new advertising company for the purpose of restoration of business reputation, bonus payments to workers for smoothing of the inconveniences caused to collective or, let us assume, transfer of the collected sum of money to other person under the contract).

In the light of the changes which have become effective on October, 1st, 2013 of the Federal act from July, 2nd, 2013 № 142-FZ which have excluded applied before at indemnification of non-material harm to legal persons analogy to indemnification of moral harm to citizens [358], the judiciary practice analysis on affairs about protection of the rights of the organisations in non-material sphere (by the current moment they are presented in vessels first of all by a category of disputes on protection just the rights of legal persons to business reputation) sees rather curious. Interest is represented also by such trials, as claimants in which the citizens possessing status IP as non-material harm of similar subjects can accept the same forms, as non-material harm of legal persons act. It is necessary to consider a significant amount of requirements declared in courts about indemnification of non-material harm (as well as earlier, in broken a set
Formulations, - address in such situations, for example, for collecting of indemnifications in the account "reputatsionnogo" and till now even "moral" harm).

Before introduction in action of the specified law on affairs about indemnification of non-material harm to the organisations various decisions were made, in their substantiation the multiple argument, thus courts of justice was resulted have shown the distinct tendency to a recognition of existence of non-material harm of legal persons and necessity such harm to compensate.

Practice of collecting of considered indemnification fluctuated and is direct after occurrence of discussed changes. Even after that the judgements approving preservation of value of the generated legal approach with reference to operating edition of the law (i.e., continuing to establish fidelity of indemnification of non-material character in favour of the organisations and after coming into force of point 11 of item 152 GK the Russian Federation in the updated kind) [359] were accepted. In similar situations tribunals specified that the new legislative formulation excludes possibility of indemnification to the legal person of moral harm whereas non-material (reputatsionnyj) the harm caused by actions (inactivity), breaking its non-property rights, comes under to indemnification.

In the presence of considerable number of cases of negation of protection of the right of the organisations and IP on business reputation in the similar way [360] it is frequent
As the basis to refusal in collecting of indemnification of non-material harm the basic aversion objazyvanija served not to carry out such payment, and absence sufficient for awarding judgement in favour of the claimant of evidentiary base (certificates of belittling of business reputation of the applicant, a relationship of cause and effect between actions of the respondent and negative changes in the intangible benefit belonging to the claimant and other) or incorrect formulations of requirements declared in court (one more reminder: absence admits judicial certificates at legal persons of the right to apply for indemnification of moral harm) [361]. Also indemnifications of moral harm in favour of physical persons - IP were collected, thus in judicial certificates was mentioned indemnification possibility "reputatsionnogo" harm to citizens with this special status, and also indemnification of non-material harm to legal persons [362] was proved.

It is represented pertinent to result competently and the given reason decision expressively illustrating inconvenient position in which have appeared pravoprimeniteli, solving a question on indemnification of non-material character in favour of legal persons is developed.

Open Company "ì" (real estate agency) has addressed in arbitration court with the statement of claim to IP K about protection of business reputation, duty putting on on the businessman to remove from all pages of the interesting claimant of a site the falsehoods discrediting its business reputation, namely: an inscription «unfair firm» and a graphic representation of a human skull accompanying it and the bones, located in line with data about
Real estate agency "N", and collecting of compensation non-material (reputatsionnogo) harm at a rate of 200 thousand rbl.

The decree of the first instance left without change the court decision of appeal instance, claims are satisfied partially. Courts have obliged K to remove from all pages of a site in a network "Internet" become by the reason of dispute of data. Also from the businessman in favour of a society it is collected 100 thousand rbl. as compensation non-material (reputatsionnogo) harm, and 4 thousand rbl. of expenses on State Tax payment. In satisfaction of other part of claims of a society it is given up. Judicial certificates motivirovany that placed on a site, the manager and the owner of which domain name is K, the information on a society discredits business reputation of the last and mismatches the validity.

The court of court of cassation of the decision of vessels has cancelled regarding collecting with K in favour of Open Company "ì" of 100 thousand rbl. as compensation non-material (reputatsionnogo) harm, in this part in the claim has given up. It is expedient to result endurances from the judicial certificate supported with a detailed substantiation on the given dispute.

«... Any court is connected by those ways and forms jurisdiktsionnoj protection of the broken or challenged rights which were established by the legislator.

In article 12 GK the Russian Federation and in other operating federal acts of that way of protection as collecting non-property (reputatsionnogo) harm, is not provided. The specified circumstance in itself excludes possibility of application of a way of the protection which have been not provided by the federal act. The right to establish ways of protection of the civil rights is a prerogative of the legislator, instead of court (including the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation).

The federal act № 142-FZ article 152 GK the Russian Federation is added by point 11 in which the legislator has clearly and unambiguously excluded possibility of application of such way of protection as indemnification of moral harm to legal bodies. At the same time the Federal act № 142-FZ
Has become effective since October, 1st, 2013 of Legal relation of the businessman and a society concerning infringement of business reputation of a society have arisen in July, 2014, hence, their regulation should be carried out taking into account new edition of article 152 GK the Russian Federation.

Under the harm caused to business reputation, it is necessary to understand its any belittling which can carry both property, and non-property character. Property character of the harm caused to business reputation to a society, is shown available at it the losses caused by concrete actions, entailed, for example, depreciation of business reputation as non-material active. Non-property character of harm is shown in loss by the organisation of positive opinion on its business qualities in the opinion of the public and business community. Such loss can entail loss of clients, reduction of quantity of orders, infringement of contractual communications, i.e. finally to cause losses of property character »[363].

Apparently, at comprehension of existence of non-material harm to the organisations and necessity of its indemnification, being capable theoretically them to prove, judges have appeared are limited by a positive law in possibility to award corresponding payment addressed to jurisdiktsionnoj to the form of protection of the rights to the claimant.

On March, 16th, 2016 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had been approved the mentioned review of practice of consideration by vessels of affairs on disputes on protection of honour, advantage and business reputation in which the following is defined: «On the affairs considered till October, 1st, 2013 (an effective date of the Federal act from July, 2nd, 2013 № 142-FZ), requirements about indemnification of moral harm were declared also legal bodies, to whom on the basis of point 7 of article 152 GK the Russian Federation (in earlier operating edition) such right has been given in case of distribution about them of the data discrediting their business reputation. Current article 152 GK the Russian Federation excludes norm application about
Indemnifications of moral harm at distribution of the data mentioning business reputation of the legal face (point 11) ». There was an impression, that, warning acceptance henceforth the broken a set decisions, continuing to arise and after reforming of item 152 GK the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, formally concerning only indemnifications of moral harm to the organisations and nothing mentioning about harm« non-material "or" reputatsionnom », has given to subordinate courts of justice definitive installation on refusals in collecting in favour of legal bodies of any payment of non-property character. Since this moment courts (quite accurately forcedly) have shown a position of negation of indemnification of non-material harm to the organisations: claims regarding collecting of such indemnifications have ceased to be satisfied on the ground that« the corresponding corporate franchise is not provided by the current law »[364].

However in the end of autumn of 2016 there was the new event important for formation of judiciary practice of protection of the rights of the organisations in non-material sphere. In one of the definitions on November, 18th, 2016 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has admitted collecting of indemnification of non-material harm in favour of legal persons [365]. In resulted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to motivation references to the well-known documents forming base of collecting of specified indemnification are contained: Definition KS the Russian Federation from December, 4th, 2003 № 508 [366] and the Decision of Presidium YOU the Russian Federation from July, 17th, 2012, and also ch. 2 items 45 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Considering the statement of claim of the St.-Petersburg Humanitarian university of trade unions to edition of the network edition and its founder about collecting of 1 million roubles as indemnification of the harm caused to business reputation in connection with the publication of data mismatching the validity on an Internet site, the trial court in satisfaction of the declared requirement has given up on November, 11th, 2015, having come to conclusion that the harm caused to the legal person, has property character, and it excludes possibility of award to it exemplary damages indemnifications, in whatever form it was expressed. The court of appeal instance has satisfied on February, 1st, 2016 the requirement, having noticed, that the legal person has the right to apply on «compensation non-material (reputatsionnogo) harm at validity of general terms of tort liability». The first instance Decree has been upheld by the decision of Arbitration court of Northwest district from April, 13th, 2016 With a support that the university has not presented proofs of approach negative for it consequences of publication of disputable article and has not resulted arguments confirming to causal relationship presence between infringement of business reputation and the challenged information. The full court of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has left last decision without change, but recognised possibility compensation of the harm caused to reputation of the legal person. That coming into force since October, 1st, 2013 of new edition of item 152 GK the Russian Federation which have excluded possibility of indemnification of moral harm in case of belittling of business reputation of legal persons, does not interfere with protection of the broken right by means of the statement the legal person of the requirement about compensation of the harm caused to its reputation is directly specified.

Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has confirmed legitimacy of collecting of the named harm and after known changes GK the Russian Federation, than again has given to the organisations chance of upholding of the rights in non-material plane, and vessels - possibility to embody corresponding protection in real indemnification that it is possible to estimate only positively. There are all bases to expect a new wave of changes of judicial precedents on the given category
Disputes, returnings to practice of indemnification of non-material harm to legal persons. At the same time it is necessary to note some important points of the analyzed certificate contradicting the built concept of non-material harm of the organisations and, from the point of view of the author, coming under updating or replacement with other legal decisions. First, the harm caused to business reputation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is understood as "its any belittling», however as examples of the last are resulted or the losses representing in the pure state property damage, or the negative intraorganizational phenomena of the legal person (for example, impossibility of planning of activity). At such vision of non-material harm to the legal person the basic which always are present at it an element is lost - actually negative changes in the organisation intangible benefit, the fact of deterioration of a condition of business reputation which can and not find reflexion in any notable "troubles" for the legal person. But, as it was marked, if it is established, that the unflattering false information was extended, possibility of collecting of indemnification for the taken place encroachment on the intangible benefit of the victim is essentially important. For this reason it is difficult to agree with the putting on fixed in made comments definition on the claimant of a duty to prove approach for it adverse consequences as a result of distribution of damaging evidences. Secondly, according to a position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the claimant for reception of indemnification of non-material harm also is obliged to prove presence of the generated reputation in this or that sphere of business relations. It is thought, however, any business reputation (not in time even not as it is necessary to be generated or not being shining) should not be left without protection against a defamation (so far as its condition, whatever unimportant it was, has worsened after illegal distribution of data). The condition of business reputation before infringement, undoubtedly, should influence the size of awarded indemnification, but not on the decision of a question on the award that. Besides, proceeding from the expediency of introduction of the term proved in the present research
«Non-material harm to the legal person», is represented undesirable meeting in the text of definition a designation of such harm a word "reputatsionnyj". In any case, the definition which has planned the positive tendency of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation became the step first lately to the further development of protection of legal persons from causing of non-material harm.

So, accorded legal persons a legislative establishment a right on business reputation, undoubtedly, should be provided by reliable tools of civil-law protection for infringement cases. Otherwise, on E.A.Tsadykovoj's fair supervision, «arises some kind of the contradiction: the right exists, and possibilities of protection of this right are not provided» [367]. Complex reconsideration in the civil legislation of institute of protection of the right to business reputation of the organisations, meaning, including, fastening in GK the Russian Federation concepts of non-material harm Is necessary for the legal person, inadequate to moral harm to the citizen, indemnification of such harm as an independent way of protection of the civil rights, and also the mechanism of its realisation. The concept "indemnification" is not synonymous to concept "compensation" and assumes only partial restoration of the broken right or the blessing, instead of their reduction in an initial condition existing before infringement. Separately it is necessary to underline, that the indemnification necessary and sufficient for elimination of material consequences of breach of law of the organisation on business reputation, powerlessly in struggle against others by the nature consequences non-material, to prove which exact size - a problem extremely arrogant. The indemnification should not and cannot substitute for itself indemnification of non-material harm. Moreover, high-grade protection of the civil rights is thought possible only at a combination of two these independent remedies at law.

The review of the approaches developed in civil law to indemnification of the harm caused to business reputation of legal persons, not being losses,
Testifies to the ambiguous decision of a considered problem scientists. Researchers, with approval concerning collecting of similar indemnification, disagree about its essence, means of its realisation and frequently functions.

The analysis of the legal nature the legal persons belonging to it of the non-property rights and the intangible benefits, case practice of the European Court and the policy of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation considering it leads to a conclusion that such harm is shown I) in actually negative changes in the intangible benefit of the organisation or in the non-property right belonging to it and 2) in capable to arise because of them the negative intraorganizational phenomena of non-property character not giving in to exact calculation, indirectly or in the long term legal persons dangerous to activity as a whole, in particular, for sphere of its property rights (uncertainty of planning of decisions, obstacles in management of the company, anxiety and the inconveniences caused to members of the administrative board of the company and labour collective, the general deterioration of an intracorporate climate, turnover of staff, infringement of business ties etc.) . The establishment of a presumption of causing to the legal person of non-material harm any infringement of its non-property rights or an encroachment on its intangible benefits sees expedient. The prime purpose of considered payment to the organisations - to compensate infringement of their non-property rights (at presence both retaliatory, and precautionary-educational functions).

GK the Russian Federation does not appeal to concept «indemnification of moral harm IP», but fixes institute of indemnification of moral harm to the physical person. The statement that GK the Russian Federation gives IP the right to demand such indemnification for citizens with this special status are covered by the term "physical persons" is correct. At the same time, non-material harm IP can take the form both moral harm to the citizen, and non-material harm to the legal person. Therefore sees correct to give the option between two corresponding ways of protection of the rights to the victim.

According to stated it is offered to bring in norms GK the Russian Federation following changes.

1. To correct 11th paragraph of item 12 GK the Russian Federation by means of addition of a word "citizen" and to enter a new general way of protection of the civil rights, having added for 11th new paragraph. In this case such protection will be carried out by «indemnifications of moral harm to the citizen»; and also «indemnifications of non-material harm to the legal body».

2. To correct the name of item 151 GK the Russian Federation («Indemnification of moral harm to the citizen») and to lead in GK the Russian Federation of item 151.1 («Indemnification of non-material harm to the legal body») the following maintenance.

«If non-material harm (negative changes in the intangible benefit belonging to the organisation or the non-property right, and also capable to arise because of them the negative intraorganizational phenomena of non-property character not giving in to exact calculation, indirectly or in the long term representing danger to activity of the legal person as a whole, in particular, for sphere of its property rights is done to the legal body: uncertainty of planning of decisions, obstacles in management of the company, anxiety and the inconveniences caused to members of the administrative board of the company and labour collective, the general deterioration of an intracorporate climate, turnover of staff, infringement of business ties, etc.), court can assign a duty of monetary indemnification of the specified harm to the infringer

At definition of the size of indemnification the court takes into consideration the factors resulted in point 2 of article 1101.1 of the present Code ».

3. To add item 9 of item 152 GK the Russian Federation with the second and third paragraphs of the following maintenance:

«The legal body in which relation the informations discrediting its business reputation are spread, has the right to claim damages and indemnifications of the non-material harm, such data caused by distribution.

The individual businessman in which relation the informations discrediting its business reputation are spread, has the right to choose between indemnification of moral harm on the conditions provided for citizens, and indemnification of non-material harm on the conditions provided for legal bodies ».

4. To entitle 4 paragraph 59 gl. GK the Russian Federation «Indemnification of non-material harm».

5. To state subitem 1 and 3 items 1099 GK the Russian Federation in the following edition:

«1. The bases and the size of indemnification of non-material harm (moral harm to the citizen and non-material harm to the legal body) are defined by the rules provided by the present chapter, and also articles 151м 151.1 present Codes.

3. Indemnification of non-material harm is carried out irrespective of property damage coming under to compensation ».

6. To replace in the name and the first paragraph of item 1100 GK the Russian Federation the term «indemnification of moral harm» with the term «indemnification of non-material harm»; to add after words of "moral harm» in the name and the first paragraph of item 1101 GK the Russian Federation a word "citizen".

7. To enter in GK the Russian Federation of item 1101.1 {«the Way and the size of indemnification of non-material harm to the legal body») the following maintenance:

«1. Indemnification of non-material harm to the legal body is carried out in the monetary form.

2. The size of indemnification of non-material harm to the legal body is defined by court depending on volume of the non-material harm suffered to victims as a result of an offence (degree of belittling of business reputation, degree of its negative consequences of non-material character); the size of the losses suffered by the legal body (at their presence); maintenances of widespread data; circumstances of fulfilment of an offence (in particular, widths of distribution of the interesting claimant of data, neodnokratnosti their distributions if it took place);

The status of the organisation, which business reputation harm, and also positions in which there was its business reputation before infringement, actions of the respondent on smoothing of non-material harm after offence fulfilment (the publication of a refutation, bringing of apologies), and also others important for disposal of legal proceeding of the given category of factors has been done.

At definition of the size of indemnification of non-material harm to the legal body rationality and justice requirements »should be considered.

<< | >>
A source: Parygina Natalia Nikolaevna. PROTECTION of the RIGHT TO BUSINESS REPUTATION of LEGAL BODIES And INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSMEN UNDER the CIVIL LEGISLATION of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Omsk -. 2017

More on topic the theory and practice of collecting of indemnification of non-material harm to legal bodies and individual businessmen.:

  1. Criteria of definition of the size of indemnification of non-material harm to legal bodies and individual businessmen.
  2. § 4.1. Indemnification of non-material harm as a way of protection of the right to business reputation of legal bodies and individual businessmen
  3. non-material harm to legal bodies and individual businessmen, its parity with moral harm to citizens and losses.
  4. indemnification of non-material harm to legal bodies: terminology questions.
  5. 4.1.1. Indemnification of non-material harm to legal bodies: positions of the legislator, the Russian and international courts of justice.
  6. § 4. The ways of protection directed on indemnification of harm, caused by belittling of business reputation of legal bodies, as a civil responsibility measure
  7. § 2.1. Responsibility conditions at belittling of the right to business reputation of legal bodies and individual businessmen
  8. § 2.2. Problems porjadkazashchity the rights to business reputation of legal bodies and individual businessmen
  9. § 1.1. Business reputation of legal bodies and individual businessmen as a legal category
  10. Chapter 2. Civil responsibility at belittling of the right to business reputation and problems of protection of this right of legal bodies and individual businessmen
  11. § 3.2. The characteristic of separate civil-law ways of protection of the right to business reputation of legal bodies and individual businessmen
  12. CHAPTER 4. Effective ways of protection of the right to business reputation of legal bodies and the individual businessmen, not provided by the current legislation
  13. CHAPTER 3. Civil-law ways of protection of the right to business reputation of legal bodies and the individual businessmen, provided by the current legislation