Go homepage(回首页)
Upload pictures (上传图片)
Write articles (发文字帖)

The author:(作者)delv
published in(发表于) 2014/1/20 9:19:09
Zou Heng fu had been charged， the agent said the North has no right of reply right of reputation

People's daily Beijing, January 20 (Li Nannan) this morning, Beijing University and the Beijing dream peach food co Zou Heng fu reputation dispute cases against the accused in Court of Haidian, Beijing public hearing. Proxy address of the plaintiff of the defendant Zou Heng fu Taoyuan company sued and dreams to plead at Peking University. Zou Heng fu says, the plaintiffs can't claim all of Peking University was founded, plaintiff's dream peach's claims lack factual and legal basis, should always be rejected.

Zou Heng fu authorized agent, the plaintiff claims all cannot be established, Peking University, should all be dismissed according to law. First, the plaintiff is not principal. Defendants criticized the style of life issue is a natural issue, not the legal issues. Even if North is the proper plaintiff, North also does not enjoy the right of reputation because the North is not a subject of civil law, civil relations with Peking University Professor with a small number of equal, North was an administrative body, is the main public utilities, does not have a private right in civil law the right to reputation. Comments made by the defendant has no subjective malice. Defendant did not commit an act against North reputation of not defamatory. Criticisms of the defendant no loss caused to the reputation of the North, have caused social evaluation of the North significantly reduced. Accused of belonging to criticize the scope of supervision, within the scope of legal protection.

Plaintiff's dream peach's claims lack factual and legal basis, should be fully dismissed, incomplete elements of tort, dreams of Taoyuan not accused critics of the direct object, the defendant's remarks referred to the plaintiff in Taoyuan dealt only with dreams of individual staff. Second, the subjective intent of the defendant's freedom of expression did not infringe the plaintiff's reputation, essential elements of the tort is the infringer necessary infringement of subjective intent, the defendants ' freedom of expression mainly through speech supervision and management at Peking University and dreams around Taoyuan and other colleges and universities enterprises to strengthen management, does not undermine the subjective intent of the business.

Dream, there is no evidence of decline in its passenger turnover of Taoyuan facts. Dream companies also failed to demonstrate that its loss of Taoyuan facts and the defendant's causal, plaintiff's dream peach complaint of defamation by companies does not constitute, and should be set aside.

　　人民网北京1月20日电 （李楠楠）今日上午，北京大学及北京梦桃源餐饮有限公司诉被告邹恒甫名誉权纠纷两案在北京海淀法院公开开庭审理。被告邹恒甫的委托代理人分别针对原告北京大学和梦桃源公司的起诉进行答辩。邹恒甫一方表示，原告北京大学的诉讼请求全部不能成立，原告梦桃源的诉讼请求没有事实和法律依据，应该全部驳回。

　　邹恒甫的委托代理人表示，原告北京大学的诉讼请求全部不能成立，依法应当全部驳回。首先，原告是不适格的主体。被告批评的生活作风问题是自然人的问题，不可能是法人问题。即使北大是适格的原告，北大也不享有名誉权，因为北大不是民事主体，北大与少数教授不是平等的民事关系，北大是行政管理主体，是公共事业主体，不具有民法上的私权利即名誉权。被告发表的评论没有主观恶意。被告没有实施侵害北大名誉权的行为，没有侮辱诽谤。被告的批评言论没有给北大的名誉造成损失，没有给北大的社会评价造成明显的降低。被告的言论属于批评监督的范畴，属于法律保护的范畴。

　　原告梦桃源的诉讼请求没有事实和法律依据，应该全部驳回，侵权要件不完备，梦桃源不是被告批评言论的直接对象，被告的言论中提到了原告梦桃源仅仅涉及个别服务员。其二，被告的言论没有侵犯原告名誉的主观故意，侵权行为的必要要件是侵权人必要有侵权的主观故意，被告的言论主要是通过言论监督促使北京大学管理层及梦桃源等高校周边企业加强管理，不存在破坏企业经营的主观故意。

　　梦桃源没有证据证明其客流减少营业额下降的事实。梦桃源公司也没有能证明其损失的事实与被告的行为存在因果关系，因此原告梦桃源公司所诉的名誉侵权不构成，应该驳回。

赞