As we have already commented in previous blogsIn the case of legal persons, the right to honour is also recognised, albeit with a different intensity than for natural persons.
Well, a recent judgment has determined the inclusion in a debt collection file as a clear violation of the right to honour of the company concerned..
In this case, a leasing finance company was included in the ASNEF EMPRESAS register.The registration was carried out by a second company.
Thus, the leasing company tried on several occasions to rectify the inscriptionsbut the other company never allowed him to do so by not replying at any time.
The conduct on the part of the second company was decisive for the 5th Court of First Instance of Orense to consider that it was a clear violation of the right to honour.
In this regard, the judge ruled that the annotations made for one year were inadmissible.
However, In order to declare this type of annotations inadmissible, the company concerned is required to make the corresponding claim on the grounds that the debt is not justified or that it derives from a commercial or commercial dispute.
Specifically, in this case, The debt arose from a commercial dispute with a supplier of the company itself, which was responsible for registering the leasing company, such conduct being punishable and giving rise to compensation for damage caused..
Therefore, this fact, in addition to the disregard of the leasing company's attempts to rectify the situation, have been decisive for The Court of First Instance found that these annotations were inadmissible, in order to establish that there had been an infringement of the leasing company's right to honour and even that there had been procedural bad faith.
In the end, the Court has opted for order the company to withdraw the registrations, to grant the same publicity as was given to the debts and to pay the costs for bad faith in the proceedings, as well as damages of €15,000 per year for damages.
Therefore, a company's right to honour can not only be harmed through damaging comments and publications, but also as a consequence of an undue inclusion in existing debt collection files, and the affected party can obtain substantial compensation as a consequence of this type of practices and conduct.