thats what i am saying lazersat u cant just say "I ll void the contract and say its invalid if u feel like it"..there needs to be a great amount of proof if the terms of the contract weren't fulfilled and have been violated...the contract cant be void just like that as u say no matter WHAT RIGHTS THEY HOLD the fact they entered the contractual relationship with TV PLUS indicates that they are obliged as a signatory of the document..now it depends on a few things. The contract can not be invalid as both parties have agreed on the terms so the contract is valid however may be voidable if the therms of the contract have been violated.
I now see why this case has been ongoing for sum time..
For courts to determine if something has become part of the contract and if it was breached the courts do 4 things:

a) they ascertain whether parties actually signed and agreed
b) they determine whether they intended those statements to BE CONTRACTUALLY BINDING
c) they determine the level of importance the parties intended to attach to those statements
d) they provide an appropriate and adequate remedy in the even of any breach

1) what terms of the contract tv plus has breached so that BHT can say we are pulling out and if those were binding to the contract

2) depending on the time too, if the contract has expired with TV PLUS and hasnt been renewed with either parties then tv plus has no rights to have the CH

as far as liski say its been paying BHT well this is not wat their rep says i am only quoting what he says

"Sto se tice UBI-a, od njih ne dobivamo jos nikakvu naknadu dok se ne okonca sudski proces"

As far as the UBI goes, we have not received any money, until the court decisions has been reached"

As I say they are only pirating the ch I guess if there is no contract between them for which I don't know how long it has been since they initially signed but I am guessing it has expired since I ve heard that they are renewed on a yearly basis...