The posted information isn’t objective; it doesn’t correspond to reality and, to put it mildly, is impolite to the company and its employees, in particular lawyers, so it harms business reputation of NIBULON and misleads a reader.
The fact is that in accordance with the current legislation of Ukraine if one spreads information on an appeal on the Internet, an author of the correspondent information and a website owner become defendants.  If false information that harms business reputation is posted on the Internet information resource registered in accordance with the law as the mass media, courts should follow the norms regulating the media while considering such claims.   
In particular, in accordance with the Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine No. 74/95 of the Verkhovna Rada, a legal entity has a right to demand denial of spread information that doesn’t correspond to reality from information agencies. The denial is issued by information agency which has spread the information. The information that isn’t consistent with reality should be denied by both an information agency and the media that have spread it.  
Therefore on September 9, 2016, NIBULON addressed itself to the court with a lawsuit to Information Agency Ukrainian Media Group Ltd. (owner of Prestupnosti.NET website) applying for recognition the information posted on the Internet on Presupnosti.NET website on Muza Makhova’s blog entitled “Barbaric destruction of coastal area in Voznesensk” as unreliable, negative, and that demeans business reputation of NIBULON and for obligation to deny it. We petitioned the court to attract Muza Makhova to the case as a third party on the side of defendant – Information Agency Ukrainian Media Group Ltd. However, the Economic Court of Mykolaiv Region dismissed the given petition.
Please note that the fact that the company brought a lawsuit to the Economic Court against Information Agency Ukrainian Media Group doesn’t mean absence of intent to file a lawsuit against Muza Makhova. Moreover, the law doesn’t measure priority of bringing suits against defendants. That is why NIBULON, being a plaintiff on the basis of discretionary in legal proceedings, has a right to choose a way to defend its violated non-property rights and determine a defendant.
On November 3, 2016, the Economic Court of Mykolaiv Region terminated the proceedings in the case pursuant to paragraph 1, Part 1, Article 80 of the Code of Commercial Procedure of Ukraine “because of the fact that the dispute can’t be considered in the economic courts of Ukraine”. In other words, the local economic court didn’t establish circumstances of the case, cause of the dispute; it didn’t study and assess the evidences provided, etc. There was no decision on the claim under the lawsuit of NIBULON. In particular, the court didn’t dismiss the suit; it came to the conclusion that the economic court lacks authority to consider the suit of NIBULON.
The company didn’t agree with the award of the Economic Court of Mykolaiv Region and appealed against it.  
On November 2016, the Appeal Economic Court of Odesa determined that the court of first instance had wrongly terminated the proceedings because of the fact that the dispute allegedly can’t be resolved in the economic courts of Ukraine. It allowed the appeal of NIBULON, cancelled the award of the local economic court, and sent the case to the Economic Court of Mykolaiv Region.
Under the given conditions, using the terminology of the author of the post, NIBULON didn’t lose the first case; it received the first interim victory in the lawsuit on protection of business reputation.
However, on February 21, 2017, the Economic Court of Mykolaiv Region terminated proceedings on the case for the second time on the same basis, namely because of the fact that the dispute can’t be considered in the economic courts of Ukraine. The local economic court didn’t reject to satisfy the company’s suit, but stated for the second time about lack of authority for hearing on the suit.  
One should pay attention to one more aspect in this situation. We used to close attention to our company for 25 years of our activity. Thus we not only publish information about our activities on our own website on a regular basis, but also give public representatives and the mass media the opportunity to visit our production branches and familiarize themselves either with construction process or work of any production branch of the company. It should be noted that one can hardly find a company in Ukraine which covers every stage, aspect, for example of its elevator construction, construction of vessel in such details and on regular basis.
If one has any questions or unreliable information is spread in the mass media, we provide all the interested parties an additional opportunity to visit the company’s facilities. So did we after spreading false information by Muza Makhova on Prestupnosti.NET website. We not only denied this information (indeed, this denial was partially posted on Prestupnosti.NET), but also invited all potentially interested parties as part of the working group of Mykolaiv Regional Council, district and village councils, relevant government agencies and public to visit “Voznesesn’ka” branch (Mykolaiv region) on July 12, 2016 and get acquainted with the progress of dredging on Southern Buh River performed by NIBULON. Neither Muza Makhova, who is so “concerned” about environmental protection of the region, nor employees of Prestupnosti.NET participated in this event.
Although the company’s management – the owner of Prestupnosti.NET website – actually admitted the mistake that the editorial office had published the unchecked and unreliable information about NIBULON, we will continue to defend our rights in court.