Constitutional Court: appealing to state authorities does not exempt one from liability for defamation

Теlegram CС - https://t.me/consot_kz  

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan refused to accept for consideration an appeal to verify the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of the Supreme Court's normative resolution No. 6 of December 18, 1992, regulating the application of legislation on the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation.

The reason for the appeal was the applicant's administrative liability for defamation in connection with sending an appeal through the E-otinish system to the Education Department of one of the regions of Kazakhstan. In the appeal, he requested that the official be dismissed from his position, citing information that was found to be untrue and damaging to the honor and dignity of the person in question. Subsequently, the court classified the applicant's actions as an administrative offense under part three of Article 73-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The applicant's appeal against the court's decision was dismissed by the appellate and cassation courts.
In the applicant's opinion, expressing an opinion in a letter to a state body should not entail legal liability, based on the meaning of Article 33 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of citizens to send collective and individual appeals to state bodies.

The Constitutional Court, refusing to accept the appeal for consideration, emphasized that constitutional rights cannot be exercised in violation of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 39 of the Constitution). An appeal to a state body does not exempt a person from liability for disseminating information that is untrue and defamatory to the honor, dignity, and business reputation of another person.

The Constitutional Court noted that the applicant had been provided with all the procedural guarantees provided for by law, including the possibility of requesting a re-examination. The contested provision of the Code of Administrative Offenses does not in itself violate the applicant's constitutional rights, and his disagreement with the court decisions is not a ground for reviewing the Supreme Court's normative ruling.

In this regard, the Constitutional Court recalled that, within the limits of its competence, it considers exclusively questions of law and does not review the factual circumstances established by the courts.