Moratorium on the Use of Russian-Language Cultural Product Does not Violate Plaintiffs’ Rights, Freedoms and Interests – Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court

Lack of violated right or mismatch of the way of protecting plaintiff’s rights chosen by him to the ways provided by law shall be the reason for the adoption of a judgment on the claim dismissal by court.

The Supreme Court represented by a panel of judges of the Administrative Cassation Court drew attention to this fact having considered in cassation procedure an administrative case under the claim of “All-Ukrainian Civil Movement “Ukrainian Choice – People’s Right” Public Association and individuals to the Council of Lviv Oblast.

The plaintiffs asked the court to recognize as unlawful and invalid the decision of the Council of Lviv Oblast No. 745 of 18 September 2018 “On the Moratorium on the Public Use of Russian-Language Cultural Product on the Territory of Lviv Oblast”, by which, particularly, it resolved to establish the moratorium on the public use of Russian-language cultural product in any form on the territory of Lviv oblast by the moment of the complete termination of Ukrainian territory occupation.

The Public Association insisted on the fact that it had right to apply to court, since the disputable judgment concerned the public activity of the plaintiff and citizens – members of the Public Association and separate sub-divisions (located in Lviv), as well as all other individuals, whose rights were violated by the disputable decision – representatives of national minorities, Ukrainian citizens, who commonly used the Russian language and Russian-language cultural product, and were the subjects of legal relations, in which this act would be applied.

The Supreme Court remarked that this disputable issue determined the limits of legal relations.

The disputable decision, in fact, established the prohibition of public single or multiple presentation, demonstration, etc. of Russian-language goods and services produced in the process of holding the activity in the sphere of culture for the purpose of the satisfaction of citizens’ cultural needs (books, art albums, audiovisual works and their demonstration, audio production (musical audio-records) works and documents on the latest data storage devices, products of arts and crafts, theater and circus performances, concerts and cultural-educational services, etc.), as well as objects of material and spiritual culture, which had artistic, historical, ethnographic and scientific significance and should be preserved, reproduced and protected pursuant to Ukrainian law, on the territory of Lviv oblast by the moment of complete termination of Ukrainian territory occupation, to public in places, where individuals, who were not members of family or close connoisseurs of the family of the person performing the demonstration, were present or could be present.

The Court noted that the plaintiffs’ arguments on the violation of their rights, freedoms or interests were abstract, did not include any justification of negative impact of the disputable decision of the Council of Lviv Council on their particular real individually expressed rights, freedoms or interests, and testified the plaintiffs’ dissent with the noted decision, which was not equal to the violation of a right, freedom or interest.

Taking into account the noted circumstances, the Supreme Court made the decision on the refusal to satisfy the claim.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of 15 August 2019 in the case No. 1340/4630/18 (administrative proceedings No. К/9901/16194/19; К/9901/16864/19) - http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/83647809.