Monthly Archives: June 2009

Ruling hits TeliaSonera

TeliaSonera’s latest attempt to suspend a sale of Turkcell shares to Russia’s Alfa Group was rejected by a Turkish court.

In 2005, Çukurova Holding sold Alfa Group a 13 percent stake in Turkcell, Turkey’s biggest mobile-phone company. TeliaSonera asked the court this month to annul the transfer, Yalın Akmenek, a lawyer for Çukurova Holding, said in a telephone interview Friday.

“I can confirm that the court has rejected our preliminary injunction request due to the complexity of the case,” said TeliaSonera Vice President for Corporate Communications Jacob Broberg. “At the same time it is important to say that this means that the court will handle our request as a whole at a later stage.”

Çukurova Holding still controls Turkcell with a 14 percent stake because of the mobile-phone company’s ownership structure. TeliaSonera claimed that Çukurova breached a shareholders agreement by selling the stake to Alfa Group. TeliaSonera, Sweden’s largest phone company, holds 37 percent of Turkcell.

www.hurriyet.com.tr

Telia may not use best coverage in mobile broadband ads

Telia is banned from advertising its mobile broadband service claiming the best network coverage, according to the Swedish market court, cited by 3 Sweden. The court has set a penalty of SEK 750,000 for every time Telia uses best network coverage for mobile broadband marketing. In a reaction, Telia states that the court case concerned the situation in May 2008 and that it already ended using the best coverage in mobile broadband ads.

www.telecompaper.com

Controversial former PM quits Lattelecom advisory board

Aigars Kalvitis (People’s Party/TP), a controversial former Prime Minister of Latvia, has resigned as chairman of the advisory board of Lattelecom, a high-paying post he got in political horse-trading when the current government of Valdis Dombrovskis (New Era/JL) was formed earlier in the spring. The deal at the time was “either Kalvitis gets the Lattelecom job, or Dombrovskis doesn’t get to head the new government”. This was reported by Latvian media and confirmed as recently as just hours before Kalvitis resigned (in a radio interview with Finance Minister Einārs Repše where I took part on June 15). Kalvitis said the reason he resigned was to encourage austerity and the abolition of unnecessary advisory board for companies jointly owned by the government and private investors. The Latvian state owns 51 % of Lattelecom, 49 % is owned by TeliaSonera.

Kalvitis appointment cast an undesirable political shadow on Lattelecom for two reasons. First, many Latvians and the media have blamed the ex-prime minister for ignoring signals that the economy was overheating already in 2006 and 2007, leading to the present economic collapse. The appointment was seen as a sinecure for a failed and despised politician (Kalvitis, who is of portly build, has been compared to the anti-littering character Cūkmens — Piggyman, an actor dressed as a pig who discourages littering in forests and nature preserves). Secondly, the ex-politician is trained as a dairy farmer and could bring little value added to a post paying around 2800 LVL per month in what is a telecoms and high-tech company. His reputation as a manager can be summed up by the current near-depression in Latvia.

With Kalvitis gone, Lattelecom, a company that should not be associated with partisan politics, can yet again continue its work without the aura of somehow coming under the influence of a political party, the TP, with one of the lowest ratings among established Latvian parties.

latviantelecoms.blogspot.com

Aigars Kalvitis steps down as Lattelecom council chairman

In a press release, Kalvitis explains that with this step he wishes to draw the attention of Latvia’s leaders that the councils of all state-owned or partially-state-owned companies should be dissolved, informs LETA.

He urges Economy Minister Artis Kampars (New Era) to come to agreement with Lattelecom’s other shareholder – Telia Sonera – on dissolving the council.

The reasoning behind this, Kalvitis explains further, is that at a time when the government is seeking every opportunity to save money, it is clear that such expensive corporate supervisory organs cannot be afforded.

In his opinion, the government has made only a “half step” in this regard by calling for liquidation of those councils whose companies have complete state ownership.

www.baltic-course.com

TEO pasiūlymai Radviliškio rajone

Tokį pasiūlymą gaunu iš TEO praktiškai nuolat kaip pasityčiojimą:

“Dabar internetas ZEBRA – greitesnis!

Šiuo metu jūs naudojatės „Optimalaus interneto“ planu. Jūsų plano interneto greitaveika Lietuvoje ir užsienyje yra iki 1 Mb/s, mėnesinis mokestis už internetą yra 49 Lt/mėn.
Jei pasirinktumėte „Optimalus plius“ planą, Jūsų interneto greitaveika Lietuvoje padidėtų 4 kartus – nuo 1 iki 4 Mb/s, o užsienyje 2 kartus – nuo 1 Mb/s iki 2 Mb/s.

Kaina išliktų ta pati – 49 Lt/mėn.

Vienkartinis plano keitimo mokestis – 100 Lt.

Pastaba: Jūsų senasis modemas gali veikti nestabiliai, todėl rekomenduojame pasikeisti į naują modemą – galėsite pasijungti daugiau nei 1 kompiuterį, naudotis internetu namuose be laidų. Modemo kaina priklauso nuo įsipareigojimo laikotarpio: be įsipareigojimo – 200 Lt, su 12 mėn. sutartimi – 150 Lt, su 24 mėn. sutartimi – 100 Lt, su 36 mėn. sutartimi – 30 Lt.

Skambinu į 1817 ir man pasako, kad galima už 49Lt tik Lietuvoj 2mb IR užsienyje 0.7mb ir NIEKO PANŠAUS į:

“Jei pasirinktumėte „Optimalus plius“ planą, Jūsų interneto greitaveika Lietuvoje padidėtų 4 kartus – nuo 1 iki 4 Mb/s, o užsienyje 2 kartus – nuo 1 Mb/s iki 2 Mb/s.”

už 99Lt “pasirodo galima” Lietuvoje 4mb IR užsienyje 1.5mb.
panašu, kad kaimiečiai yra antrarušiai, iš kurių galima imti dvigubai už ta patį, nes konkurentu, kaip žinia, provincijoje TEO neturi ir pilnai išnaudoja savo monopolį.
Aišku nuolat siūlo savo televiziją ir kitas nereikalingas paslaugas, kas dar labiau erzina…

GINTARASLLL @ TAKAS . LT

www.skundai.lt

The Supreme Court acknowledges the Senate Lattelecom guilty of antitrust violations

Supreme Court of the Senate supported the Competition Council (CC) in 2002 adopted a decision which found that Lattelecom abused a dominant position, thus Lattelecom paid at that time applied to 143.9 thousand lats fine.

Senāts atteicās ierosināt kasācijas tiesvedību saistībā ar SIA „Lattelecom” kasācijas sūdzību, jo Senātam neradās šaubas par Administratīvās apgabaltiesas sprieduma un attiecīgi KP lēmuma tiesiskumu. The Senate refused to initiate appeal proceedings in relation to SIA Lattelecom “the cassation complaint, because the Senate did not result in doubts about the conviction and the Regional Administrative Court decision in CP. Tā kā Senāta lēmums nav pārsūdzams un KP lēmums ir kļuvis neapstrīdams, SIA „Lattelecom” izpildīja KP lēmumu un samaksāja uzlikto naudas sodu. As the Senate’s decision was not appealed, and the CP decision has become incontrovertible, SIA Lattelecom “executed the decision of CP and paid the fine imposed.
Lēmumā KP konstatēja, ka 1999.gada 30.decembrī SIA „Lattelecom”, SIA „Datatel” un Telia AB noslēdza jaudu savienošanas līgumu, ar kuru SIA „Lattelecom” pēc būtības uzņēmās telekomunikāciju līniju savienošanu. Decision CP noted that the 1999 30.decembrī SIA Lattelecom, SIA Datatel and Telia AB entered into a contract bonding capacity of the SIA “Lattelecom” essentially took the telecommunications bonding. Saskaņā ar līguma noteikumiem SIA „Lattelecom” nodrošina iekšzemes nomātās jaudas, kuru nomāja SIA „Datatel”, un starptautiskās nomātās jaudas, kuru nomāja Telia AB, savienošanu (pakalpojums „kapacitāšu savienošana”), lai SIA „Datatel” būtu iespēja veikt komercdarbību interneta pieslēguma pakalpojumu tirgū, izmantojot starptautisko sakaru līniju starp Rīgu un Stokholmu. Under the terms of the contract SIA “Lattelecom” ensure domestic leased capacity, which leased Ltd. “Datatel, and international leased capacity leased by Telia AB, connecting (service capacity coupling”) to Ltd. “Datatel” would have the opportunity to carry on business in the Internet connection services market, through transnational communication line between Riga and Stockholm. Atbilstoši līgumam SIA „Datatel” par pakalpojumu bija pienākums SIA „Lattelecom” maksāt ierīkošanas maksu Ls 8000 apmērā un ikmēneša abonēšanas maksu Ls 14 000 apmērā. Under the agreement, SIA Datatel “for the service had an obligation to SIA Lattelecom” to pay the installation fee for Ls 8000 and monthly subscription fee of Ls 14 000. Uzskatot, ka „kapacitāšu savienošanas” pakalpojums ir līdzvērtīgs starptautiskās ciparu nomātās līnijas pakalpojumam, SIA „Lattelecom” no 2001.gada 1.jūlija vienpusēji paaugstināja pakalpojuma maksu SIA „Datatel” no Ls 14 000 līdz Ls 49 000 mēnesī un uzstāja 1999.gada 30. Considering that the ‘bonding capacity, “the service is equivalent to the international digital leased line service, SIA Lattelecom” from the 2001 July 1, unilaterally increased the service charge Ltd. “Datatel from 000 Ls 14 to Ls 49 000 per month, and insisted the 1999 30 . decembra līguma vietā noslēgt jaunu līgumu tieši par starptautisko ciparu līnijas nomu. December contract for a new contract instead of directly on the international digital line rental.
Pārbaudot SIA „Lattelecom” rīcības atbilstību Konkurences likumā noteiktajām prasībām, KP atzina, ka SIA „Lattelecom” ļaunprātīgi izmantojusi dominējošo stāvokli telekomunikāciju līniju iznomāšanas tirgū Latvijā: 1) bez ekonomiska pamatojuma uzspiežot SIA „Datatel” pakalpojuma „kapacitāšu savienošana” ikmēneša maksu; 2) vienpusēji bez ekonomiskā izmaksu pamatojuma paaugstinot pakalpojuma „kapacitāšu savienošana” ikmēneša maksu, tādējādi uzspiežot netaisnīgu maksu un ietekmējot tās konkurenta interneta pieslēguma pakalpojumu tirgū sniegto pakalpojumu izmaksas. The examination of SIA Lattelecom “to act in accordance with the requirements of the Competition Act, KP acknowledged that SIA” Lattelecom “abused a dominant position in the telecommunications line letting the market in Latvia: 1) with no economic justification for imposing Ltd.” Datatel “service” capacity coupling ‘monthly fees, 2) unilaterally, without an economic justification for raising the cost of service “capacity coupling” the monthly fee, thereby imposing unfair charges and the impact on its competitor, the Internet connection services market cost of the services rendered. Ar lēmumu SIA „Lattelecom” uzlikts naudas sods Ls 143 919 apmērā, uzdots pārtraukt pakalpojuma „kapacitāšu savienošana” nepamatotas ikmēneša maksas iekasēšanu un turpmāk piemērot uz izmaksām balstītu pakalpojuma maksu. The decision to SIA Lattelecom “fined Ls 143 919 extent, to discontinue the service” capacity coupling “unreasonable charging a monthly fee and continue to apply to cost-based charges.
KP pauž gandarījumu, ka šajā lietā Latvijas tiesu praksē Senāts ir nostiprinājis principu, ka pierādījumu iesniegšanas pienākums konkurences tiesībās lielā mērā balstās uz uzņēmumu, kuram ir dominējošais stāvoklis tirgū. CP is pleased that in this case, the Latvian judicial practice, the Senate has strengthened the principle that evidence of an obligation under competition law is largely based on the company, which has a dominant market position. SIA „Lattelecom” nesniedza pamatojumu pakalpojuma „kapacitāšu savienošana” ikmēneša maksai un tās paaugstināšanai, līdz ar to nepierādīja, ka noteiktā maksa atbilst pakalpojuma ekonomiskajai vērtībai un nav uzskatāma par netaisnīgu. SIA “Lattelecom” provided no justification for using the “capacity coupling” the monthly fee, and it increases until it did, that the charges correspond to the economic value and are not considered to be unreasonable. Senāts arī skaidri norādīja, ka cenas uzspiešanas gadījumā novērtējums nav jābalsta tikai uz civiltiesībās atzītiem principiem, bet dominējošā stāvoklī esošam uzņēmumam jāņem vērā tieši Konkurences likumā kā speciālajā normā ietvertie ierobežojumi pakalpojuma cenas noteikšanai. The Senate also made clear that prices are pushing for the case of assessment is not based solely on civil law principles, but the dominant undertaking should be taken into account directly to the Competition Law as a special provision included restrictions on the price. Attiecībā uz ievērojamo piemērotā naudas soda apmēru tiesa atzina, ka naudas sods jānosaka pietiekami preventīvā līmenī ne tikai tādēļ, lai sodītu attiecīgos uzņēmumus, bet arī tādēļ, lai kavētu citus uzņēmumus uzsākt vai turpināt rīkoties pretēji Konkurences likuma normām. With regard to the substantial amount in the appropriate court found that the fine should have a sufficiently deterrent effect, not only to punish the businesses concerned, but also to deter other companies to initiate or continue to act contrary to competition law.

www.nra.lv

Also, the Senate recognizes that Lattelecom abused a dominant position

Supreme Court of the Senate supported the Competition Council (CC) in 2002 adopted a decision which found that Lattelecom abused a dominant position, thus Lattelecom paid at that time applied to 143.9 thousand lats fine.

KP pārstāve Inita Kabanova Db paskaidroja, ka Senāts atteicās ierosināt kasācijas tiesvedību saistībā ar Lattelecom kasācijas sūdzību, jo Senātam neradās šaubas par Administratīvās apgabaltiesas sprieduma un attiecīgi KP lēmuma tiesiskumu. CP Agent Inita Kabanovs Db explained that the Senate refused to initiate appeal proceedings in connection with Lattelecom appeal, because the Senate did not result in doubts about the conviction and the Regional Administrative Court decision in CP.

Tā kā Senāta lēmums nav pārsūdzams un KP lēmums ir kļuvis neapstrīdams, Lattelecom izpildīja KP lēmumu un samaksāja uzlikto naudas sodu 143.9 tūkstošu latu apjomā. As the Senate’s decision was not appealed, and the CP decision has become incontrovertible, Lattelecom complied with CP’s decision and paid the fines imposed on 143.9 thousand lats.

Lēmumā KP konstatēja, ka 1999.gada 30.decembrī Lattelecom , Datatel un Telia AB noslēdza jaudu savienošanas līgumu, ar kuru Lattelecom pēc būtības uzņēmās telekomunikāciju līniju savienošanu. Decision CP noted that the 1999 30.decembrī Lattelecom, Datatel and Telia AB entered into a contract bonding capacity, which essentially took the Lattelecom telecommunications bonding. Saistībā ar līguma noteikumiem Lattelecom nodrošina iekšzemes nomātās jaudas, kuru nomāja Datatel, un starptautiskās nomātās jaudas, kuru nomāja Telia AB , savienošanu, lai Datatel būtu iespēja veikt komercdarbību interneta pieslēguma pakalpojumu tirgū, izmantojot starptautisko sakaru līniju starp Rīgu un Stokholmu. In connection with the contract terms Lattelecom provides domestic leased capacity leased by Datatel, and international leased capacity leased by Telia AB, connecting it to Datatel should be able to carry on business in the Internet connection services market through international communication line between Riga and Stockholm. Atbilstoši līgumam Datatel par pakalpojumu bija pienākums Lattelecom maksāt ierīkošanas maksu 8 tūkstošu latu apmērā un ikmēneša abonēšanas maksu 14 tūkstošu latu apmērā. Under the agreement, Datatel for the service had an obligation to pay the installation fee Lattelecom 8 thousand lats and the monthly subscription fee of 14 thousand lats.

Uzskatot, ka «kapacitāšu savienošanas» pakalpojums ir līdzvērtīgs starptautiskās ciparu nomātās līnijas pakalpojumam, Lattelecom no 2001.gada 1.jūlija vienpusēji paaugstināja pakalpojuma maksu Datatel no 14  līdz 49 tūkstošiem latu mēnesī un uzstāja 1999.gada 30. Considering that the ‘bonding capacity, “the service is equivalent to the international digital leased line service, Lattelecom 2001 July 1, unilaterally increased the service charge Datatel from 14 to 49 thousands of pounds a month, and insisted, 1999 30. decembra līguma vietā noslēgt jaunu līgumu tieši par starptautisko ciparu līnijas nomu. December contract for a new contract instead of directly on the international digital line rental.

Pārbaudot Lattelecom rīcības atbilstību Konkurences likumā noteiktajām prasībām, KP atzina, ka Lattelecom ļaunprātīgi izmantojusi dominējošo stāvokli telekomunikāciju līniju iznomāšanas tirgū Latvijā. The examination of Lattelecom to act in accordance with the requirements of the Competition Act, KP acknowledged that Lattelecom abused a dominant position in telecommunications letting market in Latvia. Ar lēmumu Lattelecom uzlikts naudas sods 143.9 tūkstošu latu apmērā, kā arī uzdots pārtraukt pakalpojuma «kapacitāšu savienošana» nepamatotas ikmēneša maksas iekasēšanu un turpmāk piemērot uz izmaksām balstītu pakalpojuma maksu. The decision Lattelecom fined 143.9 thousand lats, as well as to discontinue the service “capacity coupling” unreasonable charging a monthly fee and continue to apply to cost-based charges.

www.db.lv

Alarms sound for Turkcell

Mehmet Emin Karamehmet, chairman of Turkcell, said his shareholding in the company has fallen to a “critical” level, Vatan newspaper said.

Karamehmet, who’s sold Turkcell shares to repay debts to the government in recent years while retaining control of the company, said any further changes to the ownership structure would mean a change of control. His Çukurova Group owns about 14 percent of Turkcell, and Russia’s Alfa Group has filed lawsuits to seize those shares.

Turkcell should remain a Turkish company, Karamehmet told Vatan. It’s unlikely Alfa and the other main shareholder, TeliaSonera, will sell their stakes to each other because of historic tensions between the countries, he said. Karamehmet was speaking in Erbil, northern Iraq, where he’s the biggest investor in the company that started exporting oil on June 1, Vatan said. Çukurova expects $15 billion in oil revenue from the region in the next two decades, it added.

www.hurriyet.com.tr

Telia charged customers twice

Telia has charged customers twice for the same bill. The problem occurred in the end of May and affected customers who pay with automatic payment service, i.e. that money are withdrawn from their bank accounts automatically.Telia has sent text messages to those affected.

www.stockholmnews.com