Szpunar, Adam2016-12-292016-12-291984Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 46, 1984, z. 3, s. 27-420035-9629http://hdl.handle.net/10593/17003Provisions of the Press Law of 1984 encourage to the fresh insight into non proprietary d a t a s deriving from impendence or infringement of personal interests. The argumentation implies knowledge of problems of personal interests protection. The question of proprietary means of protection is beyond the scope of the article. The elaboration consists of two parts. In the first one the author discusses crucial questions related to interpretation of the Civil Code in the light of new judicial decisions. Provision of art. 24 of the C.C. institutes two separate, basically independent non proprietary claims: for desistance and for performing acts to remove results of effected infringement. A person whose interest is impended over by another person's act is entitled to the claim for desistance. The statute is introducing the presumption of illegality of perpetrator's act. The author studies several newest decisions concerning that claim. It can be also applied in the neighbourhood relations resulting in the interdiction of acts exceeding the average level of disturbances, impending over such personal interests as health and peacefullness. A problem of defining circumstances excluding illegality of acts is of a crutial importance. Other questions are to be discussed with reference to the claim for removing results of effected infringement. For a, long time that matter had its weight in labor law in the respect of amending employee's record. Coming into force of Labor Gode brought about an essential change, and judicial decisions precised application, of the Civil Code provisions to questions of records. The art. 24 of the C.C. retains its full impact beyond the labor relations. The second part of the elaboration dwells on a study of two institutions of the press law i.e. amendment and opinion. Papers editor is obliged to insert a factual correction of untrue or inaccurate information at the request of the interested party. The same applies to publishing a reply to statements impending over personal interests. In most of the cases it is a breach of good name (libel, indignity). The author attempts at delimiting legitimate press critique and its effect on the right to response.polinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessArtykuł