The Supreme Court has adopted a new Plenum decision "On the Protection of Personal Rights" and introduced a number of innovations into judicial practice.
This was reported to Modern.az by the court.
It was stated that previously, if one person disseminated false information about another, claims were made using the institution of protection of honor and dignity, but the claims were not satisfied when the information was found to be true. However, the dissemination of true information about a person without their consent is also a violation of the law.
This constitutes an interference with the right to personal inviolability, which is protected at a constitutional level, and anyone whose right has been violated may familiarize themselves with the information collected about them, demand the correction of information that is untrue, incomplete, or obtained in violation of legal requirements, the removal (cancellation) of such information, compensation for moral damage incurred, etc.
With its new decision, the Supreme Court has distinguished this right from the right to protection of honor and dignity, specifically noting that the right to personal inviolability, in a constitutional sense, aims to protect the privacy of personal and family life, serving to ensure respect for every person's personal and family life and their feeling comfortable and safe in society.
In its decision, the Supreme Court extensively interpreted and brought to the forefront the right to respect for private and family life, which is an important institution of the right to personal inviolability but has hitherto remained less protected in judicial disputes compared to others.
The right to respect for private and family life is the right to keep the secret of private and family life, to be protected from unlawful interference with private and family life, i.e., from the collection, storage, use, and dissemination of information about one's private life without one's consent. Even after a person's death, this right can be protected by their heirs.
The law not only protects information related to private and family life but also safeguards a person's dwelling, car, service room, belongings, as well as other items of a personal nature, their animals, plants, and other objects.
The collection, storage, use, and dissemination of medical information about a person, information related to their financial and property status, personal correspondence, information about their past and other information constituting a personal secret, their address, marital status, height, age, gender, personal relationships between spouses (emotional, sexual, etc.), intra-family behaviors, reasons for divorce, origin and health status of children, information related to adoption, as well as other confidential and sensitive information for the family, without the person's consent or any legal basis, and their malicious disclosure to the person themselves, are prohibited and lead to civil liability.
It is prohibited to deliberately and actively collect information about someone without any legal basis and without authorization.
For example, if a person, for their own interests, accesses an information database containing confidential information to obtain data about another person and collects personal information related to that person, this action is considered illegal and leads to civil liability. However, if the information becomes known to a person unintentionally, by accident, it will not be considered illegal, provided that they do not use or disseminate it against the person to whom it belongs. For example, if mobile phones of the same model are swapped, and the person who accidentally obtains the phone sees a photograph or correspondence constituting a personal secret upon opening it, this person will bear no responsibility if they do not use or disseminate what they have seen.
It is prohibited to disseminate information constituting a personal and family secret without the consent of the persons concerned. In particular, its disclosure through mass methods in television or radio programs, social networks, etc., can result in a greater amount of moral damage due to the mass nature of the dissemination. If the dissemination was made through audio-video recording, the media entity, along with the person disseminating it, will unequivocally bear responsibility for the violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
If the content of a program carries the risk of unlawful interference with personal rights, media entities in regularly broadcast live programs and various series of ongoing episodes must clearly warn individuals appearing live that they will be held responsible for the information they voice and their behavior in terms of violating people's right to respect for private and family life; otherwise, the media organization itself will be held responsible for any violations that occur.
If a person discloses information they have obtained to the person it concerns, in a one-on-one setting, with demeaning intentions and malicious intent, such as by mocking, ridiculing, humiliating, discrediting, etc., this will be considered a violation of the right to personal inviolability and will create grounds for moral damage. For example, the malicious disclosure to a person of true information (correspondence, photos, videos, and other personal data protected by law) about their health status, physical deficiencies, having a child out of wedlock, or extramarital relationships.
Furthermore, with its new decision, the Supreme Court has also assessed unauthorized entry into a person's dwelling, a service room allocated to an employee, their shelves, desk, computer, a person's bag, or pocket without their consent or appropriate legal basis, as a violation of the right to personal inviolability. Following the Plenum's decision, causing harm to a person's animals or plants may also be considered grounds for moral damage.
Violation of these rights will lead to civil liability, regardless of whether it results in criminal liability.
Along with individuals who have disseminated information constituting a personal and family secret, persons responsible for the storage of this information, organizations, departments and enterprises, responsible persons managing information about employees (persons providing services on other grounds) and human resources within the personnel systems of workplaces, employers, clinics, mobile operator networks, banks and other enterprises providing services to citizens, state bodies, social network platforms, legal and natural persons will also bear responsibility as persons ensuring the unlawful accessibility of information to third parties.
Because they are obliged to protect the personal data they hold (in their information systems) related to the services they provide, they are responsible for ensuring that this information is not disseminated and that the person's basic data available on the e-government portal is not accessed without their consent or legal grounds; the opposite of what is stated is considered an interference with the right to personal inviolability.
If a person has given their consent to the dissemination of such information, civil liability does not arise. Consent must be explicitly expressed and must not be contrary to law or morality. A person can give their consent both in written and oral form, or indicate it through their behavior or by remaining silent. For example, if a person likes a post made about them on a social network without their consent and writes a positive comment below it, consent is considered to have been given.
Furthermore, if the information was publicly available or the person themselves disclosed it to the public, no one bears responsibility for it. For example, if a person shares their contact information, life, illness, work, business partners, and so on, on an internet resource, this is considered the person themselves having disclosed that information to the public. The subsequent dissemination of this information by other persons as is does not create civil liability.
The dissemination of information constituting a personal and family secret by state bodies and other persons is possible in cases defined by law. For example, the sharing of a person's photograph, clothing, height, age, gender, and other information by law enforcement agencies for the purpose of finding a person who is being sought is not considered a violation.
If the disseminated information is in the public interest, this is also not considered a civil rights violation. Since the behavior, decisions, and activities of public figures directly or indirectly affect society, their private lives should also be open to public scrutiny.
In this case, the dissemination should not exceed the public interest. For example, a journalist informs the public about the head of a local self-governing p owning luxury apartments and cars inconsistent with their official income, as well as their child having a congenital defect. Although the circumstances related to the person's property status are personal information, they fall within the legitimate public interest, and the dissemination of this information cannot be considered a violation. However, information related to the child's physical disability will be considered an unlawful interference with private and family life, as it does not serve any public interest in terms of the performance of that person's public duties.
