Tweet
THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN AN ILLEGAL DECISION
GEVORG HAROUTYUNYAN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on June 28, 2008
Armenia
Interview with GRIGOR AMALYAN, Head of the National Committee on
Television and Radio
`Mr. Amalyan, are there any justifications to the claims that `A1+' has
won the case and proved its righteousness in the European Court of
Human Rights?'
`First of all, it is necessary to find out why `Meltex' company lodged
an appeal with the European Court, and what decisions the latter made
and only then estimate which party won the case. And there are really
victories and hence ` occasions for congratulating the winner
It was many years ago that I insisted, in one of the interviews to
`Hayots Ashkharh', that the party most interested in the outcome of the
case was the Republic of Armenia and particularly, our committee. Now,
the European Court provided a final and clear-cut answer to all the
questions which had been a subject of inappropriate speculations for
many years on end.
In clause 6 of the case, `Meltex' LLC gave an overall picture of the
pressures and harassments used against it in 1994-1995. The European
Court did not make any decision in this regard; however, it formed a
general idea about our country. In particular, the court substantiated
the fact that `A1+' was deprived of a license with political
considerations in 1995, prior to the presidential elections.
`Meltex' attributed its defeat in 2002 and failures in the subsequent
contests to this story. There were two claimants: `Meltex' LLC and
Mesrop Movsisyan. Under clause 68, the European Court established that
the latter could not be considered an aggrieved party in the frameworks
of this particular case.
It was alleged in the claim that there were violations under Articles
10 (freedom of speech), 6 (fair trial) and 14 (non-discrimination
clause) of the European Convention. As a result of relevant studies,
the European Court clearly concluded and stated in its decision that
there were no violations of procedural rights. I believe this will put
an end to the libels and speculations addressed to our country's
judicial system for so many years. This is really a victory, and I
congratulate both `Meltex' and the whole Armenian people on this
occasion.
There were also discussions on political discriminations against `A1+',
and this also served as a factor for compromising the Republic of
Armenia. In clause 97 of its decision, the European Court underlined
that it hadn't displayed a discriminatory attitude to `Meltex'. In this
way, the `tool' used many times in the past with the purpose of
inciting a clash was actually eliminated. I express my congratulations
on this victory too.
It was mentioned in the claim that our committee worked illegally, not
recognizing `Meltex' a winner as a result of the contest. Whereas, in
clause 82 of its decision, the European Court definitely stated that
our committee worked in compliance with the existing laws of that
period. Our committee is an executive body, and it's not entitled to
editing the laws or applying them at its own will under any
circumstances. If this is what `Meltex' considers to be its victory, I
express my greetings both to the company and our committee. I also hope
that there will no longer be any libels addressed to our committee or
our country. For us, this decision of the European Court is the same as
the 1953 Universal Acquittal Act for an individual convicted in 1937
under the charges of being the `enemy of the people'.
According to `Meltex', we violated Article 10 (the right to freedom of
speech) of the Convention, not recognizing the company as a winner in
the 2002 contest and failing to substantiate our decision. However,
there was no such requirement contained in Article 57 which was in
effect at the time, and naturally, we acted within the law.
Nevertheless, the European Court added that this might restrict the
claimant's right to freedom of speech, and it envisaged compensation in
the amount of 20 thousand Euros for `Meltex' LLC in addition to a sum
of 10 thousand Euros for covering the defense costs.
Here, too, the winner is the Republic of Armenia, since under the
amendment introduced into the law in 2003, it is necessary to
substantiate the decisions of the committee. Whereas `Meltex' applied
to the European Court in 2004 when our National Assembly had already
bridged the existing legislative gap without an extra mediation,
coercion or proposal.'
`Mr. Amalyan, what goal did `Meltex' pursue, and what did it achieve?
How do you estimate the outcome of the court procedures?'
`In the appeal lodged with the European Court of Human Rights, `Meltex'
LLC claimed material damage in the amount of 357 thousand 828 US
Dollars. The structural components of the `damage' were the unpaid
incomes, compensations for contractual terminations and the loss of the
unused equipment. In its decision, the European Court directly labeled
the formulation of the unpaid incomes and missed chances as a
speculative claim. As to the other two formulations, they were
considered unfounded. That's to say, the claim was an attempt of
receiving (if not extorting) a very large from the Republic of Armenia
through a speculation.
There was also a claim for the compensation of the non-material damage
which, according to the estimations of `Meltex', made up 50 thousand US
Dollars. However, there was no documentary evidence, and some costs
were unnecessary. Therefore, the European Court satisfied the claim in
the amount of 10-20 thousand Euros.'
`Mr. Amalyan, Mesrop Movsisyan claims that under the decision of the
European Court, `A1+' company should be given airtime without delay.
Does this imply a new contest or are you going to give them airtime on
a new frequency?'
`I consider that the decision on withdrawing a license from a TV
company before the expiry date and granting it to another company is
strange. `A1+' fully exercised its competences with respect to the
frequency; all the rights of the company were exhausted upon the expiry
of the terms of the license.
The Council of Europe could not have made an illegal decision and
demanded that `A1+' be given airtime immediately. It is impossible to
violate the Constitution, the right to a free competition and a number
of laws just in order to give airtime to someone. PACE Resolution #
1620 calls on the licensing body to take into consideration the
decision of the European Court and ensure an open, free and transparent
contest.
GEVORG HAROUTYUNYAN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on June 28, 2008
Armenia
Interview with GRIGOR AMALYAN, Head of the National Committee on
Television and Radio
`Mr. Amalyan, are there any justifications to the claims that `A1+' has
won the case and proved its righteousness in the European Court of
Human Rights?'
`First of all, it is necessary to find out why `Meltex' company lodged
an appeal with the European Court, and what decisions the latter made
and only then estimate which party won the case. And there are really
victories and hence ` occasions for congratulating the winner
It was many years ago that I insisted, in one of the interviews to
`Hayots Ashkharh', that the party most interested in the outcome of the
case was the Republic of Armenia and particularly, our committee. Now,
the European Court provided a final and clear-cut answer to all the
questions which had been a subject of inappropriate speculations for
many years on end.
In clause 6 of the case, `Meltex' LLC gave an overall picture of the
pressures and harassments used against it in 1994-1995. The European
Court did not make any decision in this regard; however, it formed a
general idea about our country. In particular, the court substantiated
the fact that `A1+' was deprived of a license with political
considerations in 1995, prior to the presidential elections.
`Meltex' attributed its defeat in 2002 and failures in the subsequent
contests to this story. There were two claimants: `Meltex' LLC and
Mesrop Movsisyan. Under clause 68, the European Court established that
the latter could not be considered an aggrieved party in the frameworks
of this particular case.
It was alleged in the claim that there were violations under Articles
10 (freedom of speech), 6 (fair trial) and 14 (non-discrimination
clause) of the European Convention. As a result of relevant studies,
the European Court clearly concluded and stated in its decision that
there were no violations of procedural rights. I believe this will put
an end to the libels and speculations addressed to our country's
judicial system for so many years. This is really a victory, and I
congratulate both `Meltex' and the whole Armenian people on this
occasion.
There were also discussions on political discriminations against `A1+',
and this also served as a factor for compromising the Republic of
Armenia. In clause 97 of its decision, the European Court underlined
that it hadn't displayed a discriminatory attitude to `Meltex'. In this
way, the `tool' used many times in the past with the purpose of
inciting a clash was actually eliminated. I express my congratulations
on this victory too.
It was mentioned in the claim that our committee worked illegally, not
recognizing `Meltex' a winner as a result of the contest. Whereas, in
clause 82 of its decision, the European Court definitely stated that
our committee worked in compliance with the existing laws of that
period. Our committee is an executive body, and it's not entitled to
editing the laws or applying them at its own will under any
circumstances. If this is what `Meltex' considers to be its victory, I
express my greetings both to the company and our committee. I also hope
that there will no longer be any libels addressed to our committee or
our country. For us, this decision of the European Court is the same as
the 1953 Universal Acquittal Act for an individual convicted in 1937
under the charges of being the `enemy of the people'.
According to `Meltex', we violated Article 10 (the right to freedom of
speech) of the Convention, not recognizing the company as a winner in
the 2002 contest and failing to substantiate our decision. However,
there was no such requirement contained in Article 57 which was in
effect at the time, and naturally, we acted within the law.
Nevertheless, the European Court added that this might restrict the
claimant's right to freedom of speech, and it envisaged compensation in
the amount of 20 thousand Euros for `Meltex' LLC in addition to a sum
of 10 thousand Euros for covering the defense costs.
Here, too, the winner is the Republic of Armenia, since under the
amendment introduced into the law in 2003, it is necessary to
substantiate the decisions of the committee. Whereas `Meltex' applied
to the European Court in 2004 when our National Assembly had already
bridged the existing legislative gap without an extra mediation,
coercion or proposal.'
`Mr. Amalyan, what goal did `Meltex' pursue, and what did it achieve?
How do you estimate the outcome of the court procedures?'
`In the appeal lodged with the European Court of Human Rights, `Meltex'
LLC claimed material damage in the amount of 357 thousand 828 US
Dollars. The structural components of the `damage' were the unpaid
incomes, compensations for contractual terminations and the loss of the
unused equipment. In its decision, the European Court directly labeled
the formulation of the unpaid incomes and missed chances as a
speculative claim. As to the other two formulations, they were
considered unfounded. That's to say, the claim was an attempt of
receiving (if not extorting) a very large from the Republic of Armenia
through a speculation.
There was also a claim for the compensation of the non-material damage
which, according to the estimations of `Meltex', made up 50 thousand US
Dollars. However, there was no documentary evidence, and some costs
were unnecessary. Therefore, the European Court satisfied the claim in
the amount of 10-20 thousand Euros.'
`Mr. Amalyan, Mesrop Movsisyan claims that under the decision of the
European Court, `A1+' company should be given airtime without delay.
Does this imply a new contest or are you going to give them airtime on
a new frequency?'
`I consider that the decision on withdrawing a license from a TV
company before the expiry date and granting it to another company is
strange. `A1+' fully exercised its competences with respect to the
frequency; all the rights of the company were exhausted upon the expiry
of the terms of the license.
The Council of Europe could not have made an illegal decision and
demanded that `A1+' be given airtime immediately. It is impossible to
violate the Constitution, the right to a free competition and a number
of laws just in order to give airtime to someone. PACE Resolution #
1620 calls on the licensing body to take into consideration the
decision of the European Court and ensure an open, free and transparent
contest.