Rejection of A1+’s suit was ungrounded
A group of lawyers consider the Administrative Court's decision to reject A1+'s lawsuit against the National Commission on Television and Radio as ungrounded.
A1+ was disputing the December 16, 2010 decision of the NCTR whereby the company was rejected a broadcasting license in another frequency tender administered by the state regulator after allegedly submitting fraudulent documents. The results of the process published by the NCTR showed A1+ trailing the operating TV channel, ArmNews in the digital broadcasting tender.
The embattled TV company has already appealed the verdict in the Court of Appeals.
The lawyers are surprised by the fact that the Administrative Court substantiated its verdict by A1+'s financial package.
"Judge Argishti Ghazaryan publicly admits that a company's finances are a more crucial criterion during the selection process, meanwhile according to the Law on the NCTR all the six criteria are equally important," A1+'s legal representative Alexander Sahakyan told journalists on Friday.
The lawyer presented numerous violations found in ArmNews's contest package.
More than six contracts about the company's services are one-sided, they do not bear the company's seal and signature. There is no information about the order for payment, finally the contracts are signed for ten years' term which is excluded in practice," said Sahakyan.
The Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression (CPFE) has also filed a suit against the state regulator. On February 21, the CPFE had inquired the NCTR to provide the application packages of the TV companies taking part in the broadcast licensing competitions, which were wrapped up on December 16 and 23, 2010. The NCTR had answered that the information requested could be provided, with the exception of those documents that contained commercial secret, specifically contracts on rebroadcasting of programs of foreign TV stations, as well as resumes of the TV companies' staff. On April 11 CPFE filed against the NCTR demanding to bind the state regulator with fully providing the inquired information.
"In compliance with its decision N23, the NCTR was to publicize application packages," CPFE representative Olga Safaryan said. The CPFE is presently disputing the decision of the Administrative Court which ruled in favour of the NCTR.
Lawyers and media representatives view the denials as a political order and are determined to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
