After a conflict with a neighbor in the Viber chat, a serviceman went to court: how the Supreme Court assessed emotional statements in the neighbors' chat

In cases concerning the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, courts increasingly evaluate messages spread in messengers.

The panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court, in a ruling dated July 1, 2026, in case No. 370/866/25, considered a dispute regarding the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation in connection with messages published in the Viber chat of village residents.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff and the defendant are neighbors. A long-standing conflict arose between them over dogs kept by the defendant.

In the village residents' Viber chat, which had 143 participants, the defendant published a series of messages about the conflict with the neighbor, in particular stating that he was turning other residents against her, provoking the dogs, terrorizing her, fired a shot in her direction, threatened with a weapon, insulted her, and "hides behind the mask of a hero."

The plaintiff, who is a serviceman, believed that these messages referred to him, although no name was mentioned in the messages, and requested their retraction as well as compensation of 200,000 UAH for moral damages.

The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim, but the appellate court overturned this decision and fully dismissed the claim. The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reminded that the basis for interference with the right to freedom of expression, for satisfying a claim for the protection of dignity and honor of an individual, and business reputation of individuals and legal entities, is a combination of circumstances.

The court noted that one of the main issues to be resolved in this category of cases is determining the nature of the disseminated information and clarifying whether it is a factual statement or an evaluative judgment. The content of the disseminated information, its significance for public discussion, the person to whom the information relates, the accuracy of the information, and the consequences of its dissemination must be taken into account.

To protect honor, dignity, and business reputation, the court must clearly define the subject of proof in the case and what exactly was the subject of the disseminated information, i.e., whether there are objective grounds for liability under Article 277 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

For this, it was necessary to determine the actions, phenomena, facts to which the information was directed, as well as whether these actions, phenomena, facts have a direct or indirect relation to the plaintiff.

That is, whether the information disseminated on behalf of the author directly concerns the plaintiff, or whether it indirectly reflects events related to the plaintiff in social or collective life through the author's perspective. This can only be done by analyzing the entire context of the disseminated information, not "isolated" terms from it.

The court noted that a personal interpretation of information received from other sources in the form of a comment is an evaluative judgment, not a statement, and therefore cannot be either refuted or confirmed.

The Supreme Court pointed out that to distinguish a factual statement from an evaluative judgment, it is necessary to consider the circumstances of the case and the overall tone of the statements, bearing in mind that statements on issues of public interest may constitute evaluative judgments rather than factual assertions.

If a statement is an evaluative judgment, there must be sufficient factual basis to support it; otherwise, it will be excessive.

The mere harsh form of expression is not an obstacle to classifying a statement as an evaluative judgment. Certain statements cannot be refuted in a claim for retraction of false information.

Assessing the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's conclusion on the necessity of analyzing the entire content of the messages and the context of the conflict between the parties.

The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court sufficiently examined the content of the disputed information, the subject matter, and the context of its presentation, gave proper assessment to the balance of competing rights and interests of the parties, and reached a reasoned conclusion that the information disseminated by the defendant in the Viber messenger group (chat) is not subject to retraction.

The appellate court reasonably considered that the information disseminated by the defendant belongs to the category of evaluative judgments and allows village residents to analyze it and perceive the content of this information according to their own subjective beliefs.

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court's ruling unchanged.

The court confirmed that when resolving disputes concerning the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, the decisive factor is not an isolated phrase but the overall content and context of the disseminated information. If the messages constitute evaluative judgments, even if they are harsh or emotional in nature, they are not subject to retraction, and in the absence of violation of personal non-property rights, there are no grounds for compensation for moral damages.

Read additionally: not everything can be written on social networks and for which posts one can be held liable.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.