The Croatian government is a 49% owner of T-HT and is therefore responsible for this company's operations, Potrosac leaders Jadranka Kolarevic and Ilija Rkman said at a press conference in Zagreb.
They described as "unheard-of" statements from T-HT that the suit brought by Potrosac was unfounded and that it would not bow down to its pressure. Rkman said that such statements showed that T-HT was acting like an "untouchable monopolist" not interested in consumer protection and consumer rights.
Kolarevic said that Potrosac activists, who have set up stands in some 20 towns across the country, had been under increasing pressure over the last two weeks.
Potrosac activists, as well as those of the non-governmental election monitoring organisation GONG who are helping them, have been visited by various "emissaries" dispelling people and trying to convince them that nothing would come of the suit against T-HT and that in the end they would have to pay high court fees by giving their power of attorney to Potrosac, Kolarevic said.
Both Kolarevic and Rkman complained that their association had had difficulty accessing the Internet over the last ten days or so, and suspected T-HT of being responsible for this.
They accused T-HT of delaying the suit by failing to submit the requested documents to the court in due time, including an annex to the October 2001 agreement between the government and Deutsche Telekom (DT), which is a 51% owner.
"It is high time the government made this agreement public so that it can be seen clearly what it says," Rkman said, adding that by refusing to reveal the contents of the agreement the government was protecting foreign capital in Croatia rather than national interests.
The association filed the suit against HT and the Republic of Croatia in May 2003. They launched their latest drive in September this year, and Kolarevic said that they had so far collected about 30,000 statements by citizens giving Potrosac power of attorney to represent them in court.
Speaking of the suit, Kolarevic said that two hearings had taken place so far, that the court was currently examining the annex to the agreement and that she did not know when the next hearing would be held.