Is he not the administrative court of the RA that assigns court sessions with long intervals or the NCTR that responded to the addition to the suit of “A1+” after around a month?
The administrative court of the RA presided by judge Argishti Ghazaryan decided during a preliminary court session yesterday that the suit of “A1+” against the NCTR no. 96-A decision to find “Armnews” company the winner is ready for the court examination. Before that it turned out that both the NCTR and “Armnews” responded to the addition to the suit reason of “A1+” that was presented on July 8; their responses had the same content, according to “A1+” representative Alexander Sahakyan.
In the response of the commission signed by head of the law and licensing department of the NCTR Licensing and Methodical board Artak Sargsyan, their remark to the “A1+” argument that in the decision to find “Armnews” Close Corporation the winner, the NCTR did not refer to the correspondence between the NCTR and “Americabank” Close Corporation about giving a 500000000-dram credit is worth mentioning. Let us remind that according to the bank reference, the credit is given to “Armnews” Limited, meanwhile it is a Closed Corporation. When “A1+” representatives made this fact public and included that in the suit, only after that the NCTR provided its correspondence with “Ameriabank”, according to which they clarified in advance that writing Limited had been just a mistake. And now in the response presented to the court the NCTR wrote, “It is not stipulated with any legal act that the request should be mentioned in the disputed decision.” In response to “Aravot’s” question whether this is a convincing counterargument for him, head of “A1+” Mesrop Movsisyan said, “Certainly, not. In the respect that if the company takes part in the contest and its application has drawbacks, it must be excluded from the contest. Both “A1+” and “Armnews” should be excluded in the same way, and if we go deep into the packages of other TV companies, then the broadcasting contests of 2010 should be found invalid altogether.”
Mentioning in the suit that 7 members of the NCTR gave “A1+” 0 grade, because it had presented false financial documentation, “A1+” asked what was the reason for giving “Armnews” 6 grade, taking into account facts noticed, while examining their contest package. They presented 6 agreements on providing service that were not sealed and signed and were not filled in the form, in the agreement signed by “Armnews” Closed Corporation with Irina Yolyan different passport information was mentioned about the same person etc. However, in response to this all, the NCTR gave no assessment. And now in response of the commission to the suit addition is mentioned, “If the documentation explaining the financial sources are to be presented, according to the law, and it is obvious that those would be a matter of discussion, then only information on the number, education and professional training of the staff are to be provided, and not, for example, their passport information or work experience. Therefore, in case of presenting information not mandatory, according to the law, the Commission did not have the authority to refer to that at all and notwithstanding the mistakes made in those, to make those a subject of discussion. Moreover, the commission does the same thing with the respective documentation in the contest package of the plaintiff.” We corrected many spelling and punctuation mistakes taken place in the whole response of the NCTR. However, at least in the sentence, where the NCTR points out two mistakes of the others, only 7 mistakes should have not been made (see the photo, underlining of the mistakes is ours).
The argument in the objection of the NCTR that Mesrop Movsesyan called “laying the blame from the sick head on the healthy one” is not less worth mentioning. The NCTR mentioned, “The current suit addition is not to be accepted by the court, because the plaintiff has not mentioned what reason or subject he is adding to or changing; this addition to the suit only repeats the positions mentioned by him before or the proofs are assessed, and he only aims at delaying this court process, as the latter has done several times already.” We reminded Artak Sargsyan who responded to the suit addition around one month after and is a respondent on behalf of the NCTR in this case that “A1+” was requesting to postpone the session for 15 days, but the judge postponed it for more than a month. However, in response to the question who was obviously aiming at delaying, Mr. Sargsyan said, “I think “A1+” representative’s court strategy is that, since he presents an addition to the suit at the last moment, only a few hours before the court session. Furthermore, the judge mentioned that neither the reason for the suit, nor the subject was changed. They only brought an addition to the legal reasons for the suit. They could have done that earlier; no new circumstance appeared during that. And the same thing was in the case of involving the third party, “Armnews”. He also added, “The court holds a session, according to its workload. Take into account that the administrative court of the RA is the most loaded court in Armenia, then one-month interval cannot be considered as a delay.” “A1+” representative Alexander Sahakyan said, in regard to this accusation of his using a court delaying strategy, “We could not prepare the suit addition at the beginning, since we only managed to present the suit because of the limits of time. And afterwards, when they provided us with the contest packages of “Armnews” and “Armenia”, we needed time to examine those in detail. Only after that we presented the addition to the suit, where we mentioned the unsigned agreements and other drawbacks.” By the way, yesterday, as after the previous session, the judge also did not state when the starting day for the court examination of this case is appointed and said that it would be stated separately.