Court to hear "A1+"'s case tomorrow
The Administrative Court will hold the first trial on "A1+"'s case on May 11 at 16:30.
"A1+" is disputing the National Commission on Television and Radio's December 16 decision 96-A with the demand for annulment. With this decision, "A1+" lost in the N 11 digital broadcasting tender since its financial means were considered unreliable.
"This appeal shows that the NCTR intervened and violated "Meltex" LTD's right to a fair competition. That is why we demand recognition of the violation of "A1+"'s right," "A1+"'s attorney Tigran Ter-Yesayan told "A1+".
"A1+" has presented a number of interpellations to the NCTR and, according to Ter-Yesayan, would make one think that the NCTR will try to reach conciliation. "After finding out the NCTR's response, I am more than sure that our interpellations were more correct."
One of "A1+"'s questions for the NCTR was related to Ameria Bank, which had certified "A1+"s opponent "ArmNews" CJSC as "ArmNews" LTD. However, the attorney says these are different legal acts. The NCTR assured that it had received clarifications during the tender, but that's not how it treated "A1+" when it reasoned that there was no stamp on the documents provided by French-Armenian benefactor Anna Danielian who had pledged funding for "A1+". This served as grounds for the commission to consider "A1+"'s financial documents unreliable.
"If it was a financial matter, the commission had to check it until the end. They should have taken a decision after checking Anna Danielian's papers. After that, they would see that "Meltex" had the necessary amount," the attorney underlined. This has served as grounds for him to conclude that the eight members of the NCTR only paid attention to the financial part of the six standards for the tender.
According to the attorney, it was physically impossible for all eight members of the NCTR to study all the packages presented for 25 tenders within 38 working days.
"We ask the NCTR many questions, but the answers are very unclear. Holding a tender is a difficult process, but there has to be transparency."
During tomorrow's trial, "A1+"'s attorneys will present several petitions and will demand that certain instances provide them with documents which they haven't been able to obtain to this day. Ter-Yesayan is certain that if "A1+" isn't able to celebrate its victory in the state court, it will achieve success in the European Court.
"I think taking the same path twice will give our courts something to think about because they will find themselves in a very bad situation, if the European Court recognizes the violation of "A1+"'s right for the second time. I have no doubts that "Meltex" LTD will win and that it is on the right path," the attorney underlined.
Let us remind that the European Court upheld "A1"+'s case on June 17, 2008.
