This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: nd the claims made remain unfounded, unsubstantiated and without merit. As a consequence of this, Grameenphone filed a title suit in the Civil Court of first instance on 17 October 2011 against BTRC seeking an
injunction restraining BTRC from claiming the said demand and filed an Appeal in the High Court Division (HCD) of the Supreme Court of
Bangladesh seeking an order of injunction against the claim made by BTRC. On 20 October 2011 HCD directed the parties to maintain ‘as
is situation’ (status quo) in respect of the claim made by BTRC for a period of six months from 20 December 2011. In this period BTRC may /page 75/
telenor annual report 2011
notes to the financial statements / telenor group present arguments to the court why the claim shall remain valid. The Management is of the opinion that it is more likely than not that the
courts will rule in favor of Grameenphone, however, it should be noted that BTRC has not renewed Grameenphone’s license to run its mobile
operation, see below.
2) bTRC – Claim in relation to license renewal
Grameenphone received a notification from BTRC on 17 October 2011 for ‘Notification of Award of License Renewal’ which included a claim
for payment of additional spectrum fee of up to approx. NOK 280 million for 7.4 MHz spectrum granted in 2008, based on retrospective
application of Market Competition Factor (MCF) as introduced in the new License Renewal Guidelines of 2011. The same notification also
demanded that all payments shall be made ‘without any deductions’, contrary to rule of National Board of Revenue (NBR) that the applicable
VAT must be deducted at source by Grameenphone and submitted to NBR. Grameenphone won the first set of legal proceedings in High
Court, but BTRC appealed to the Supreme Court which sent the case back to the High Court for further proceedings. On 13 February 2012, the
High Court rejected the claim from BTRC. BTRC has however not yet renewed Grameenphone’s license to run its mobile operation. The license expired in November 2011.
1) dispute between TOT, CAT and dTAC regarding Access Charge/interconnection
On 17 May 2006, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued the Notification on use and Interconnection of
Telecommunications Network of 2006 (Notification) applicable to telecommunication licensees who have its own telecommunication network,
requiring the licensees to interconnect with each other on request, where the interconnection provider is entitled to apply an interconnection
charge that reflects its costs. On 17 November 2006, DTAC issued a written notification informing Telephone Organization of Thailand (TOT) and the licensor CAT Telecom
Public Company Limited (CAT) that DTAC would no longer apply the rates for calculating the access charge under the Access Charge
Agreement entered into with TOT on the basis that the rate and the collection of access charge under the Access Charge Agreement were
contrary to the law in a number of respects. DTAC also informed TOT and CAT that it would pay the interconnection charge to TOT when DTAC
and TOT have entered into an interconnection charge agreement in accordance with the Notification.
On 16 June 2011, DTAC received a notice from the Central Administrative Court stating that TOT has filed a plaint requiring the court to order
DTAC and CAT to jointly pay Access Charge to TOT, together with the default interests, in the amount of approximately NOK 21 billion. The
Company submitted a defense to the court on 26 January 2012. Presently, this case is under consideration of the Central Administrative Court.
The management believes based on advice from legal counsel that the outcome of the dispute would not have a material adverse effect
on the financial position of DTAC. The net effect (before income taxes) in ceasing to recognise the access charge under the Access Charge
Agreement from 18 November 2006 to 31 December 2011 amounts to NOK 8.2 billion in reduced expenses.
DTAC is also in dispute with TOT in a matter related to the negotiation and entering into an interconnection agreement between TOT and
DTAC’s respective networks. DTAC requested on 2 October 2006 a negotiation of such agreement between the parties, pursuant to the
Notification. The matter has been through various administrative and court proceedings, which has concluded that TOT is obligated to
commence negotiations with DTAC. TOT still rejects the entering into an interconnection agreement and has appealed the matter to Supreme
Administrative Court. The matter is now under consideration of the Court. The management believes based on advice from legal counsel that
the outcome of the dispute would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position of DTAC.
2) disputes between dTAC and CAT regarding revenue sharing payment under concessionary agreement On 11 January 2008, CAT submitted a claim to the Arbitration Institute requesting DTAC to make concession revenue sharing payments for
the 12th – 16th concession years amounting to NOK 4.2 billion inclu...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 03/21/2014.
- Spring '14