The Ust-Kamenogorsk city court refused a resident's claim against the municipal state enterprise "Taza Öskemen" for the protection of honour and dignity and for compensation for moral damages. The reason for the refusal was the court's conclusion that there was no "dissemination of information", as the offensive expressions were sent to the claimant in private correspondence.
According to Ratel.kz, the court case concerned a conflict that arose after the resident's social media posts about the work of the "Taza Öskemen" company of the Ust-Kamenogorsk akimat.
According to the claimant, an employee of the enterprise, having obtained his phone number, first messaged him on WhatsApp and, after being blocked, sent a series of insulting messages from the enterprise's official Instagram account (@tazaoskemen). Among the expressions used were: "bastard", "scum", "fool", "extortionist", "terrorist".
The claimant considered that such actions humiliated his honour and dignity and demanded compensation for moral damages in the amount of 1 million tenge. He noted that the messages were sent from the corporate page, which could be interpreted as the official position of the state enterprise.
A forensic psychological and philological examination confirmed the negative nature of the messages. However, the court referred to the norms of the Civil Code and a regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court, according to which information is considered disseminated only if it is brought to the attention of third parties — through the media, public speeches, statements, or in another manner.
In this case, the court classified the sent messages as private correspondence and noted the absence of an element of information dissemination.
As a result, the Ust-Kamenogorsk city court refused to satisfy the claim for the protection of honour and dignity and for compensation for moral damages. In addition, the claimant was ordered to compensate the costs of the expert examination and the payment for the services of the defendant's representative.
The claimant filed an appeal and submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In it, his representative stated that the claim was initially not based on the fact of disseminating defamatory information, but concerned insults in private correspondence.
The appeal also emphasises that the court of first instance did not consider the questions posed by the claimant to the expert, focusing exclusively on requests from the defendant's side.