THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT REGARDING "A1+" TV COMPANY
Arthur Hovhannisyan

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
June 19, 2008
Armenia

The European Court of Human Rights recently published its decision
on the following case: "’Meltex’ LLC and Movses Movsisyan vs. the
Republic of Armenia". As reported by the press, ‘A1+’ TV company has
won the case. The TV company’s claim was satisfied, "The European
Court has de facto stated in its claim that ‘A1+’ was deprived of
airtime illegally" etc. As a matter of fact, the court satisfied the
claim of ‘Meltex’ LLC., the owner of "A1+".

Moreover, the court decision contains no statement saying that "A1+"
was deprived of airtime illegally; as to the victory of "Meltex"
ltd. and the defeat of Armenia, it’s not absolutely appropriate and
right to touch upon the topic in this particular case.

In a press conference convened yesterday, Deputy Minister of Justice
GEVORG KOSTANYAN, authorized representative of the Armenian Government
in the European Court, touched upon the issue.

According to Mr. Kostanyan, "If we have a formal approach to this
decision of the European Court, I can declare officially that the
Republic of Armenia is a winner rather than a loser with respect to
the decisions (It’s not accidental that I mention the word ‘decisions’
in the plural). If we consider our disputes with ‘Meltex’ LLC. in the
European Court, I can state that the Republic of Armenia has won 5/6
of the case while ‘Meltex’ LLC has won only 1/6 of it."

As confirmed by G. Kostanyan, it’s not accidental that the lawyers
of "Meltex" ltd. do not speak about the May 27 decision of the same
court. The case of "Meltex" ltd. has been under the proceeding of the
European Court since 2002. The claim submitted by the above-mentioned
company on October 17, 2002, was rejected by the European Court on
May 27, 2008.

"That’s to say," the Deputy Minister of Justice continued,
"the European Court has made a decision on declaring the case
inadmissible. The matter was originally addressed to the claim
submitted to the European court with regard to the participation in
the contest for frequency No. 37."

As we know, it is the very first contest in which the company
participated but didn’t win and thus was deprived of a license. Only
in 2004 did "Meltex"LLC and its Chairman Movses Movsisyan submit the
second claim against Armenia, and what’s more, they argued the fact
of not having been granted a license in the sixth contest.

"From this point of view too, if we speak in the language of the
respectable attorneys, we can’t say that we lost the case," the
authorized representative said. "The plaintiffs had submitted three
claims, arguing violations under 3 Articles of the Convention (the
‘violations’ are their allegations). With respect to 2 articles,
the court made a decision on inadmissibility, and two claims were
thus rejected.

The court passed an admissibility decision with respect to one claim
and found that there had been a violation.

>From the point of view of winning or losing the case, let me mention
the following: whenever a relevant claim goes to the European Court,
the parties undoubtedly have certain expectations. The expectation of
Micro Movsisyan and ‘Meltex’ LLC was to receive around 1500000 Dollars;
that’s to say, claimants expected the Republic of Armenia to pay them
that sum as a compensation. As a result of the Government’s objection,
the European Court decided to satisfy the claim in the amount of 30000
Euros. That’s to say, when considering the expectations of the parties,
it is necessary to specify whether the conversation is about victory
or defeat."

Giving more details, G. Kostanyan said that the plaintiffs of the
second case were Mesrop Movsisyan and "Meltex" LLC. Based on the
objections of the Government, the court removed Mesrop Movsisyan’s name
from the case, recognizing him as an unrightful claimant and did not
recognize him as an aggrieved party. That’s to say, it confirmed the
fact that the decision made by the National Committee on Television
and Radio as well as the further decisions of the relevant courts did
not constitute a violation of any law in relation to Mesrop Movsisyan,
as he was not a even a subject of telecommunication sphere in the
frameworks of the law on Telecommunication and Radio.

As informed by G. Kostanyan, the European Court discussed only the
violation of the right to freedom of speech.

"The violation of freedom of speech," he continued, "was recognized
purely in consideration of the fact that refusing to grant a license
to the company, the National Committee on Television and Radio did
not clearly specify the reasons which served as grounds for rejection.

That’s to say, it was exclusively the absence of clear-cut reasons
that led to a violation of the law."

Touching upon the specified financial compensations, the Deputy
Minister said, "Meltex’ LLC and Mesrop Movsisyan claimed that the
Government pay material and non-material damages and cover the
defense costs. The material damages made up around 1350000 Dollars,
and the non-material damages made up 50000 Dollars. In the meantime,
the costs for defense were classified into two groups: sums spent
on the local attorneys and sums spent on the well-known KHPR law
organization of London.

The European Court totally rejected the material claims of "Meltex"
company and satisfied the non-material claims in the amount of
20.000 Euros.

As regards the costs for defense, it only satisfied the claim for
the sums to be paid to KHRP company of London.

G. Kostanyan underlined that the European Court had not confirmed
the statements which "Meltex" had been making since 2002, saying that
the company had been denied a license on political motives.

He also said that the court decision doesn’t mean that Armenia (the
given committee) is obliged to grant a license to "Meltex" LLC; the
company is free to participate in contests for frequencies as it did
in the past and be granted a license in case of winning the contest.