Search

Foreign and domestic legislation and legal doctrine regarding the right to be forgotten, establishing its features, in particular in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war, are analyzed. It is noted that recently in the international legal field there is a mention of the existence of a new category for legal scholars - the right to be forgotten. The definition of the right to be forgotten is disclosed and it is established that, in a broad sense, the right means that a certain person after a certain period of time can turn to the media to remove previously disseminated information about him, which is not currently of a certain public interest, but at the request of the person should not to exist in public space. In a narrow sense, the right to be forgotten preserves the personal identity of the relevant person in its subjective aspect, which is related to honor, objectivity and reputation, that is, it prevents the person from being reminded of certain information related to him and causing him certain negative consequences in society. The importance of ensuring a balance between freedom of speech, expression of views, freedom of the press and the right to be forgotten is established. The need to maintain a balance of private and public interests in the context of the right to be forgotten is considered. It is noted that the Court of the European Union recognized the possibility of a person acquiring the right to be forgotten only when there is no interest in information about a specific person in the public space, and also when such a person does not play a special, significant and important social role. It is emphasized that the right to be forgotten is different from the protection of the right to privacy and its realization does not entail the manifestation of measures of civil liability. The impossibility of applying the right to be forgotten in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war is analyzed. Emphasis is placed on the fact that persons who are somehow involved in armed aggression cannot expect that their name will be “whitened” in the future. It is noted that international companies have set a new standard of business behavior regarding geopolitical events in the future with their decisions. It has been established that companies must cease cooperation with the russia or persons related to it. It was emphasized that transnational corporations, by exiting the russian market, exert a significant influence on the lack of financing of the military machine, preserving their good name. It was concluded that there is another side of the medal of the right to be forgotten, when certain information, despite its resonance, must be forgotten so that the victim can live on and count on an objective attitude towards himself. It is proposed to develop relevant provisions on the regulation of the unimpeded exercise of the right to be forgotten by persons who suffered from the war, despite the fact that their cases were high-profile and of great public interest, because a person has the right not to be associated with such situations.

The article is devoted to the study of legislation and legal doctrine on compensation for moral damages for humiliation of honour, dignity and the right to inviolability of business reputation of a police officer who is a representative of law enforcement agencies. It has been determined that the institute of civil liability distinguishes compensation for moral damages as a specific measure of civil liability, which is specified in the Civil Code of Ukraine as a measure of protection. It has been established that the amount of moral damages cannot be calculated by the court when deciding on their compensation, and therefore the court is guided by its own subjective beliefs when calculating them, which is a problem of law enforcement. Case law on police officers' claims for moral damages from persons who have violated their personal non-property rights has been analysed. It has been found that the courts apply the practice of higher courts, which is based on the approaches of the international community, that a police officer is a public figure whose activities are of public interest and therefore must tolerate criticism, and this cannot be a ground for going to court. It has been substantiated that an employee of an internal affairs agency is a representative of the State, and therefore, in case of violation of his/her personal non-property rights, in particular, the right to inviolability of business reputation, failure to award him/her compensation for moral damages affects the reputation of both the agency in which he/she serves and the State. It has been proven that this approach of binding a police officer to the provisions on public figures harms the reputation of the State and eliminates the application of the preventive function of civil liability, which is an important factor for maintaining public order. To support the positions of national scholars, the author proposes to create a separate regulatory act which would provide guarantees for the protection of personal non-property rights of law enforcement officers and establish a balance between the observance of freedom of expression in the media regarding police activities and the observance of the rights of law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.