Why did the NCTR (National Commission on Television and Radio) ignor the violations of “ARMNEWS”?

“A1+” added the enumeration of these violations to the lawsuit against the NCTR

Yesterday “A1+” added the grounds for the lawsuit against the National Commission on Television and Radio at the administrative court of the RA and judge Argishti Ghazaryan gave time to the NCTR representative to get acquainted with these additions. In the appendix consisted of 7 pages it is particularly pointed out that in no. 96-A decision of the NCTR that found “Armnews” the winner, the NCTR surprisingly forgot to mention the correspondence between the NCTR and “Ameriabank” Closed Corporation concerning the readiness to give 500000000-dram credit. Let us remind that according to the information provided by the bank, the credit was given to “Armnews” Limited. Meanwhile that company is a closed corporation. When “A1+” representatives made this fact public and included it in the lawsuit afterwards, only after that the NCTR provided its correspondence with “Ameriabank”, according to which they had clarified in advance that writing Limited was just a mistake. Meanwhile now “A1+” representative Alexander Sahakyan mentioned in the appendix, “In our opinion, in this case, the correspondence between the NCTR and “Ameriabank” Closed Corporation either took place after making 96-A decision made on 16.12.2010 and bringing the lawsuit to the court, or the NCTR showed laziness and did not refer to that correspondence in 96-A decision made on 16.12.2010.” Mentioning in the appendix of the lawsuit the fact that the existence of the false documentation was the reason for 0 grade of the 7 members of the NCTR, in the case of “A1+”, Mr. Sahakyan asks, then what was the reason for 6 grade, in the case of “Armnews” Closed Corporation, taking into account the following facts they noticed during the examination of the package of “Armnews” Closed Corporation – “Armnews” Closed Corporation presented 6 service agreements, 5 with physical persons and one with a legal person, signed on 01.10.2010, a few days before the application deadline for the competition. However, those agreements were not signed by “Armnews” Closed Corporation and were not filled in the form. And the agreement with “Tsayg” Limited lacks its seal.” Another fact, at the beginning of the service agreement signed by Irina Yolyan with “Armnews” Closed Corporation “it is mentioned (passport – AF 0497797, issued – 13.09.2002, by 032), but at the end of the agreement it is mentioned (passport – AF 0497797, issued – 12.05.2008, by 032). This mismatch was also out of the notice of the NCTR and was not assessed in any way.” Along with this, “A1+” reminded that the NCTR found the certificate of 280 thousand Euro given by Anna Tanielyan in their competition package groundless, particularly mentioning that neither a seal, nor a signature is in the document, nevertheless the address, phone number and fax number of the company, the number of the electronic mail, the website, the account number of the taxpayer etc. were in the certificate, “All of these details were ignored by the NCTR and it quoted no. 96-A decision. However, in the case, when a similar document (service agreement without the seal and signature of “Armnews” Closed Corporation) existed, the NCTR did not make any assessments.”
Another detail from the lawsuit, “There were bios of the two workers in the competition package, in which it was mentioned they had worked since 2001, while “Armnews” Closed Corporation was registered in 2002.”
In the appendix of the lawsuit, there are lots of facts of violating the established order. Let us say that there is no mention of the “A1+” financial documents’ being false and groundless in no. 31 protocol of the NCTR, “Thus, where and under what conditions the reading included in the decision emerged remains unknown for the Plaintiff.”
Summarizing all this, the “A1+” representative stated that all this testified to the fact that “the competition organized by the NCTR was just a formality, the NCTR interfered in the competition process, the NCTR members have not examined the competition package of “Armnews” Closed Corporation thoroughly, and while examining, the facts of mismatches were ignored.”
By the way, “A1+” suggested to involve “Armnews” as the third party, however, in its written answer presented to the court, the latter found appropriate that the examination of the lawsuit took place in their absence.