Is the Russian-language inscription on the letterhead a design element: the lawyer requested an examination, but the court refused

The Vasylkiv City District Court of Kyiv region refused to appoint a comprehensive art and linguistic examination in the case filed by a lawyer against the Commissioner for the Protection of the State Language to recognize as unlawful and cancel the decision on an administrative offense. The court concluded that the questions proposed by the plaintiff do not relate to circumstances relevant to resolving the dispute or essentially reduce to legal questions that cannot be the subject of expert examination.

Essence of the case

The plaintiff challenges the decision of the Commissioner for the Protection of the State Language No. 70 dated February 12, 2026, and requests to close the proceedings in the administrative offense case due to the absence of an offense.

He justifies his claims by stating that the object underlying the Commissioner's conclusions was mistakenly qualified as business correspondence text. According to the plaintiff, it is an integral architectural composition and a work of applied graphic design, not textual information within the meaning of language legislation. The plaintiff asserts that the content of his communications was presented exclusively in Ukrainian, and certain graphic elements of the letterhead, including the logo, cannot be considered an independent act of communication.

He also emphasizes that for liability under Article 188-52 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, direct intent is necessary, while the use of the disputed letterhead was part of the lawyer's professional identification. It was separately noted that the presence of the "rambler.ru" service address on the letterhead is a remnant of a design created back in 2004, and the service itself has been blocked in Ukraine since 2017, which, according to the plaintiff, excludes the possibility of intentional use of such details.

The plaintiff also referred to the fact that this letterhead has been used for many years in interactions with state authorities and courts, including submissions to the Supreme Court and other institutions, and therefore its use was effectively recognized as permissible. In his opinion, holding him liable for actions long perceived by state bodies as lawful contradicts the principle of legal certainty.

Furthermore, the plaintiff pointed out shortcomings in the contested decision, including lack of proper reasoning, violations of the Code of Administrative Offenses requirements regarding the content of the decision, incorrect application of the Law "On Ensuring the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language," as well as violations of the principles of due legal procedure and good governance.

During the case review, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting a comprehensive art and linguistic examination. He asked the experts to investigate whether the graphic design of his letterhead is a work of graphic design and an object of copyright, whether the relevant inscription functions as a logo and individualizes the subject, and whether the semantic and aesthetic perception of the composition changes if this inscription is altered or removed.

The plaintiff justified the need for the examination by arguing that, in his opinion, the Commissioner incorrectly defined the subject of legal regulation by equating a complex artistic and graphic work with an ordinary textual message. The plaintiff believed that the disputed inscription is an integrated part of the logo and performs a function similar to a signature, and therefore it cannot be assessed as ordinary text from the perspective of language legislation.

Court's position

The court recalled that according to Article 102 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, an examination is appointed when establishing circumstances relevant to the case requires special knowledge in a field other than law, and without such knowledge, it is impossible to establish the relevant circumstances.

The court also noted the provisions of part two of Article 101 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, according to which the subject of an expert's conclusion can only be circumstances that are part of the evidence and require special knowledge, while legal questions cannot be the subject of expert examination.

Evaluating the proposed questions, the court concluded that questions about whether the graphic design of the letterhead is a work of graphic design and an object of copyright, as well as about changes in the semantic and aesthetic perception of the composition, are irrelevant to resolving the dispute since the subject of evidence in the case is not the protection of graphic design or copyright.

Regarding the question about the function of the inscription within the letterhead structure, the court noted that it is essentially aimed at establishing the legality of using this inscription in the context of the Law "On Ensuring the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language." Thus, the plaintiff proposes to delegate the resolution of a legal question to the expert, which directly contradicts the requirements of part two of Article 101 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.

The Vasylkiv City District Court of Kyiv region in case No. 362/1662/26 recognized the motion to appoint a comprehensive art and linguistic examination as unfounded and denied it.

The court concluded that the questions posed by the plaintiff either do not relate to circumstances relevant to resolving the dispute or are legal questions, the resolution of which belongs exclusively to the court's competence, not the expert's. Therefore, there are no grounds for appointing an examination in the case.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.