YPC Weekly Newsletter

2009


DISPUTE BETWEEN GYUMRI MUNICIPALITY AND “GALA” TV COMPANY AGAIN CONSIDERED BY PRIMARY JURISDICTION COURT

On January 14, in accordance with the ruling of the RA Court of Cassation,
the court of general jurisdiction of Shirak region started new hearings on the
dispute between Gyumri municipality and the founder of “GALA” TV company, “Chap”
LLC, regarding the right to use the city TV tower. As it has been reported,
on October 31, 2008 the Court of Cassation abolished the ruling of the court
of primary jurisdiction of February 29, 2008, according to which “GALA” founder
was to stop using the city TV tower and to dissemble the equipment installed
on it (see YPC Weekly Newsletter, October 31 – November 6, 2008).
The Court of Cassation decided that the case be redirected for re-consideration
by the court of general jurisdiction of Shirak region.

The hearings were to start on December 22, 2008, yet were delayed due to the
absence of the representative of Gyumri municipality. At the session of January
14 the city administration submitted to the court the resolution of the Gyumri
Council of Elderly of December 25, 2008 that allows the municipality to lease
the city TV tower to the TV company for one years’ time with a monthly rent
of 100,000 AMD (around $ 330). The representative of “CHAP”, on his behalf,
noted that the LLC owner was not invited to the session of the Council of Elderly
and was notified of the resolution only on January 13, 2009, that is, a day
before the court session. Besides, in the opinion of “CHAP”, the rent is apparently
exaggerated (according to the information held by “CHAP”, the balance cost of
the TV tower amounts to 760,000 AMD and hence the annual rent exceeds the balance
cost by almost 60%). Representative of “CHAP” filed two motions: about receiving
a certificate from the Gyumri territorial subdivision of the RA State Cadastre
regarding the possibility for “GALA” TV company to use another city TV tower
and about a technical court assessment of the tower in question. Both motions
were accepted by the court. The hearing will continue after the responses to
the motions are received.