UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

Form 20-F

o                                   Registration Statement pursuant to Section 12(b) or (g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

or

x                                 Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006

or

o                                   Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

or

o                                   Shell company report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of event requiring this shell company report

Commission file number 333-12032

MOBILE TELESYSTEMS OJSC

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Not Applicable

(Translation of Registrant’s name into English)

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

4 Marksistskaya Street, Moscow 109147 Russian Federation

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

NONE
(Title of Class)

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act:

NONE
(Title of Class)

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report.

1,977,404,009 ordinary shares, par value 0.10 Russian rubles each and 155,310,125 American Depositary Shares, as of December 31, 2006.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  x Yes o No

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  o Yes x No

Note—Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from their obligations under those Sections.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant(1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. x Yes o No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated file, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check One):

Indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow.  o Item 17 x Item 18

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). o Yes x No

(1)              Listed, not for trading or quotation purposes, but only in connection with the registration of ADSs pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Table of Contents

i

Unless the context otherwise requires, references to “MTS,” “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to Mobile TeleSystems OJSC and its subsidiaries. “UMC” refers to Ukrainian Mobile Communications, our Ukrainian operations, which we acquired in March 2003. We refer to Mobile TeleSystems LLC, our 49%-owned joint venture in Belarus as MTS Belarus. As MTS Belarus is an equity investee, our revenues and subscriber data do not include MTS Belarus. Our reporting currency is the U.S. dollar and we prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or U.S. GAAP.

In this document, references to “U.S. dollars,” “dollars,” “$” or “USD” are to the lawful currency of the United States, references to “rubles” or “RUR” are to the lawful currency of the Russian Federation, references to “hryvnias” are to the lawful currency of Ukraine and references to “€,” “euro” or “EUR” are to the lawful currency of the member states of the European Union that adopted a single currency in accordance with the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community, as amended by the treaty on the European Union, signed at Maastricht on February 7, 1992.

ii

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Matters discussed in this document may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (the “U.S. Securities Act”) and Section 21E of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “U.S. Exchange Act”). The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides safe harbor protections for forward-looking statements in order to encourage companies to provide prospective information about their businesses. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performance, and underlying assumptions and other statements, which are other than statements of historical facts.

Mobile TeleSystems OJSC, or MTS, desires to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and is including this cautionary statement in connection with this safe harbor legislation and other relevant law. This document and any other written or oral statements made by us or on our behalf may include forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance. The words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “project,” “predict,” “plan,” “may,” “should,” “could” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements appear in a number of places including, without limitation, “Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors,” “Item 4. Information on Our Company—B. Business Overview” and “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects,” and include statements regarding:

·       strategies, outlook and growth prospects;

·       future plans and potential for future growth;

·       liquidity, capital resources and capital expenditures;

·       growth in demand for our services;

·       economic outlook and industry trends;

·       developments of our markets;

·       the impact of regulatory initiatives; and

·       the strength of our competitors.

The forward-looking statements in this document are based upon various assumptions, many of which are based, in turn, upon further assumptions, including without limitation, management’s examination of historical operating trends, data contained in our records and other data available from third parties. Although we believe that these assumptions were reasonable when made, because these assumptions are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies which are difficult or impossible to predict and are beyond our control, we cannot assure you that we will achieve or accomplish these expectations, beliefs or projections. In addition to these important factors and matters discussed elsewhere herein and in the documents incorporated by reference herein, important factors that, in our view, could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include the achievement of the anticipated levels of profitability, growth, cost and synergy of our recent acquisitions, the timely development and acceptance of new products, the impact of competitive pricing, the ability to obtain necessary regulatory approvals, the condition of the economies of Russia, Ukraine and certain other Commonwealth of Independent States, or CIS, political stability in Russia, Ukraine and certain other CIS countries, the impact of general business and global economic conditions and other important factors described herein and from time to time in the reports filed by us with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC.

Except to the extent required by law, neither we, nor any of our respective agents, employees or advisors intends or has any duty or obligation to supplement, amend, update or revise any of the forward-looking statements contained or incorporated by reference in this document.

1

PART I

Item 1.                        Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisors

Not applicable.

Item 2.                        Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable

Not applicable.

Item 3.                        Key Information

A.                Selected Financial Data

The selected consolidated financial data for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2005 and 2006, and as of December 31, 2005 and 2006, are derived from the audited consolidated financial statements, prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP included elsewhere in this document. In addition, the following table presents selected consolidated financial data for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2003, and as of December 31, 2002, 2003 and 2004, derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not included in this document. Our results of operations are affected by acquisitions. Results of operations of acquired businesses are included in our audited consolidated financial statements from their respective dates of acquisition. The summary financial data should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements, included elsewhere in this document, “D. Risk Factors” and “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects.” Certain industry and operating data are also provided below.

2

  (1)      “Sundry operating expenses” consist of general and administrative expenses, provision for doubtful accounts and other operating expenses (including charges incurred in connection with the “universal services reserve fund”).

  (2)      Includes dividends on treasury shares of $1.1 million, $1.5 million and $6.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively. The Board of Directors recommended that the annual general meeting of shareholders to be held on June 29, 2007, approve annual cash dividends in the amount of $747.4 million (including dividends on treasury shares of $6.0 million) for the year 2006, payable in 2007. See also “Item 10. Additional Information—B. Charter and Certain Requirements of Russian Legislation—Dividends.”

3

  (3)      Capital expenditures include purchases of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets.

  (4)      Includes notes payable, bank loans, capital lease obligations and other debt.

  (5)      Calculated as common stock less treasury stock.

  (6)      Calculated as book value of total debt divided by the sum of the book values of total shareholders’ equity and total debt at the end of the relevant period. See note 4 above for the definition of “total debt.”

  (7)      Source: Sotovik, J’Son & Partners, AC&M-Consulting, Ukrainian News and our data. None of this data is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements.

  (8)      We define a subscriber as an individual or organization whose account shows chargeable activity within 61 days (or 183 days in the case of prepaid tariffs) or whose account does not have a negative balance for more than this period. Prior to October 1, 2004, UMC used a 90-day period for such purposes with respect to its “Jeans” and “SIM-SIM,” or prepaid, subscribers.

  (9)      Average monthly minutes of usage per subscriber is calculated by dividing the total number of minutes of usage during a given period by the average number of our subscribers during the period and dividing by the number of months in that period. For Ukraine, the 2003 figure has been calculated based on the months of March through December 2003.

(10)      Average monthly service revenue per subscriber is calculated by dividing our service revenues for a given period, including guest roaming and fees for connecting users of other operators’ fixed line and wireless networks to our network, or interconnect fees, by the average number of our subscribers during that period and dividing by the number of months in that period. For Ukraine, the 2003 figure has been calculated based on the months of March through December 2003.

(11)      Subscriber acquisition costs are calculated as total sales and marketing expenses and handset subsidies for a given period divided by the total number of gross subscribers added during that period. For Ukraine, the 2003 figure has been calculated based on the months of March through December 2003.

(12)      We define our churn as the total number of subscribers who cease to be a subscriber (as defined above) during the period (whether involuntarily due to non-payment or voluntarily, at such subscriber’s request), expressed as a percentage of the average number of our subscribers during that period. For Ukraine, the 2003 figure has been annualized based on the months of March through December 2003. The significant decrease in the 2004 churn rate in Ukraine is largely attributable to the change in our churn policy for “Jeans” and “SIM-SIM” subscribers in Ukraine. See note 7 above. Under the previous churn policy, the 2004 churn rates would have been 23%.

B.               Capitalization and Indebtedness

Not applicable.

C.               Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not applicable.

D.              Risk Factors

An investment in our securities involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following information about these risks, together with other information contained in this document, before you decide to buy our securities. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In that case, the value of our securities could also decline and you could lose all or part of your investment.

We have described the risks and uncertainties that our management believes are material, but these risks and uncertainties may not be the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties, including those we currently are not aware of or deem immaterial, may also result in decreased revenues, increased expenses or other events that could result in a decline in the value of our securities.

Risks Relating to Business Operations in Emerging Markets

Emerging markets such as the Russian Federation, Ukraine and other CIS countries are subject to greater risks than more developed markets, including significant legal, economic and political risks.

Investors in emerging markets such as the Russian Federation, Ukraine and other CIS countries should be aware that these markets are subject to greater risk than more developed markets, including in

4

some cases significant legal, economic and political risks. Investors should also note that emerging economies such as the economies of the Russian Federation and Ukraine are subject to rapid change and that the information set out herein may become outdated relatively quickly. Furthermore, in doing business in various countries of the CIS, we face risks similar to (and sometimes greater than) those that we face in Russia and Ukraine. Accordingly, investors should exercise particular care in evaluating the risks involved and must decide for themselves whether, in light of those risks, their investment is appropriate. Generally, investment in emerging markets is only suitable for sophisticated investors who fully appreciate the significance of the risks involved and investors are urged to consult with their own legal and financial advisors before making an investment in our securities.

Risks Relating to Our Business

If our purchase of UMC is found to have violated Ukrainian law or the purchase is unwound, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects would be materially adversely affected.

On June 7, 2004, the General Prosecutor of Ukraine filed a claim against us and others in the Kiev Commercial Court seeking to unwind the sale by Ukrtelecom of its 51% stake in UMC to us. The complaint also sought an order prohibiting us from alienating 51% of our stake in UMC until the claim was resolved on the merits. The claim was based on a provision of the Ukrainian privatization law that included Ukrtelecom among a list of “strategic” state holdings prohibited from alienating or encumbering its assets during the course of its privatization. While the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in May 2001 issued a decree specifically authorizing the sale by Ukrtelecom of its entire stake in UMC, the General Prosecutor asserted that the decree contradicted the privatization law and that the sale by Ukrtelecom was therefore illegal and should be unwound. On August 12, 2004, the Kiev Commercial Court rejected the General Prosecutor’s claim.

On August 26, 2004, the General Prosecutor requested the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review whether certain provisions of the Ukrainian privatization law limiting the alienation of assets by privatized companies were applicable to the sale by Ukrtelecom of UMC shares to us. As of the date of this document, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has not yet responded to the General Prosecutor’s request.

If the Constitutional Court of Ukraine determines that Ukrtelecom’s sale of its stake in UMC contradicted the terms of the Ukrainian privatization law, the General Prosecutor would be able to request the Kiev Commercial Court to reopen the case based on new circumstances and could potentially include additional plaintiffs that were not parties to the original proceeding and/or additional claims.

In addition, as UMC was formed during the time when Ukraine’s legislative framework was developing in an uncertain legal environment, its formation and capital structure may also be subject to challenges. In the event that our purchase of UMC is found to have violated Ukrainian law or the purchase is unwound, in whole or in part, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects would be materially adversely affected.

Our controlling shareholder has the ability to take actions that may conflict with the interests of holders of our ADSs.

We are controlled by Sistema, which currently controls 53.1% of our outstanding shares. If not otherwise required by Russian law, resolutions at a shareholders’ meeting will be adopted by a simple majority in a meeting at which shareholders holding more than half of the issued share capital are present or represented. Accordingly, Sistema has the power to control the outcome of most matters to be decided by vote at a shareholders’ meeting and, as long as it holds, either directly or indirectly, a majority of our shares, will control the appointment of a majority of directors and removal of directors. Sistema is also able to control or significantly influence the outcome of any vote on matters which require three-quarters majority vote of a shareholders’ meeting, such as amendments to the charter, proposed reorganizations

5

and substantial asset sales and other major corporate transactions, among other things. Thus, Sistema can take actions that may conflict with the interests of other shareholders and holders of our ADSs.

Sistema has outstanding a significant amount of indebtedness, including $350.0 million of notes maturing in 2008, $350.0 million of notes maturing in 2011 and $600.0 million outstanding under a $600.0 million credit facility agreement Sistema entered into with Vneshtorgbank, maturing in 2010. Therefore, Sistema will require significant funds to meet its obligations, which may come in part from dividends paid by its subsidiaries, including us.

Sistema voted in favor of declaring dividends of $220.0 million in 2004, $402.6 million in 2005 and $561.6 million in 2006. The indentures relating to our notes do not restrict our ability to pay dividends. As a result of paying dividends, our reliance on external sources of financing may increase, and our cash flow and ability to repay our debt obligations, or make capital expenditures, investments and acquisitions could be materially adversely affected.

Sistema also owns an interest in Sky Link CJSC, which operates on a CDMA-2000 standard in a number of key regions, including Moscow and St. Petersburg. Sky Link may pursue business strategies that specifically target high-end businesses and residential customers, which could result in increased competition for us.

The telecommunications services market is characterized by rapid technological change, which could render our services obsolete or non-competitive and result in the loss of our market share and a decrease of our revenues.

The telecommunications industry is subject to rapid and significant changes in technology and is characterized by the continuous introduction of new products and services. The mobile telecommunications industry in Russia is also experiencing significant technological change, as evidenced by the introduction in recent years of new standards for radio telecommunications, such as WiFi, WiMAX, EDGE and UMTS, ongoing improvements in the capacity and quality of digital technology, shorter development cycles for new products and enhancements and changes in customer requirements and preferences. Such continuing technological advances make it difficult to predict the extent of the future competition we may face. As a result, we cannot assure you that existing, proposed or as yet undeveloped technologies will not become dominant in the future and render the technologies we use less profitable or even obsolete. We cannot assure you that new products and services that are more commercially effective than our products and services will not be developed. Furthermore, we cannot assure you that we will be successful in responding in a timely and cost-effective way to keep up with these developments. Changing our products or services in response to market demand may require the adoption of new technologies that could render many of the technologies that we are currently implementing less competitive or obsolete. To respond successfully to technological advances and emerging industry standards, we may require substantial capital expenditures and access to related or enabling technologies in order to integrate the new technology with our existing technology.

A decline in relations between Russia and the other countries where we operate could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have operations in Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Belarus and may expand into other countries in the future, which have had in the past strained relationships with Russia. Any new tensions between Russia and these countries or further declines in such relationships could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

For example, the relationship between Ukraine and Russia has been historically strained due, among other things, to Ukraine’s failure to pay arrears relating to the supply of energy resources, Russia’s introduction of an 18% value-added tax, or VAT, on Ukrainian imports and border disputes. Tensions

6

between Russia and Ukraine were recently ignited in relation to a dispute over the decision of Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, to increase the price of natural gas sold to Ukraine. Although this dispute was settled in January 2006 with the parties’ entry into a new gas transportation contract, the terms of this contract have been subject to severe criticism in both countries and led, among other things, to the Ukrainian parliament’s attempt to dismiss the Ukrainian government in January 2006. A decline in Ukraine-Russia relations and any changes adversely affecting energy supplies from Russia to Ukraine and/or Ukraine’s export of goods and services to Russia could materially adversely impact the Ukrainian economy, our Ukrainian operations and our financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, the relationship between Turkmenistan and Russia has been strained over the supply and payment of gas from Turkmenistan. In 1994, the Russian government refused to export Turkmen gas to hard currency markets and, in addition, certain major customers in the former Soviet Union fell behind in their payments for the supply of gas. These two factors contributed to a sharp fall in industrial production and an increase in the country’s deficits. In September 2006, Turkmenistan threatened to cut off gas supplies to Russia until the Russian government ultimately agreed to increase the amount it pays for Turkmen natural gas from $65 to $100 per 1,000 cubic meters. Any further decline in Turkmenistan-Russia relations and any changes adversely affecting Turkmenistan’s export of oil and natural gas to hard currency markets via Russian export routes could materially adversely impact the economy in Turkmenistan and, in turn, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We face significant risks with respect to our operations in Turkmenistan due to the country’s current political, economic and legal uncertainty.

Turkmenistan has taken a cautious approach to economic reform, attempting to use revenues from its oil and gas and cotton sales to sustain the economy. Nonetheless, in 2004 the unemployment rate was approximately 60% and, in 2003, 58% of the population was estimated to be living below the poverty line. Between 1998 and 2002, Turkmenistan suffered from a lack of adequate export routes for its natural gas, and from its short-term debt obligations. Economic prospects in the near future are discouraging due to widespread poverty in Turkmenistan and high levels of debt. If the economy continues to suffer and the people of Turkmenistan lack the disposable income required to purchase our telecommunications services, then our business, financial condition and results of operations could suffer.

We are in the process of transferring to a new billing system, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations in the short term.

We are in the final stages of implementing a new billing system, which we expect to complete in Russia in July 2007. The transition to the new billing system in the other countries where we operate will take longer to complete. Although we have already begun to experience increases in our overall efficiency and reductions in our expenses as a result of the new billing system, we are still required to run both the old and new billing systems simultaneously during the transition period, creating additional burdens on our technical support staff. We may also experience technical problems with the new billing system during the transition period. These factors may increase our operational risks and expenses and inconvenience for subscribers in the short term. The failure or breakdown of key components of our infrastructure in the future, including our billing system and its susceptibility to fraud, could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

If we cannot successfully develop our network or integrate our acquired businesses, we will be unable to expand our subscriber base and maintain our profitability.

We plan to expand our network infrastructure by extending coverage and increasing the capacity of our existing network in the Moscow and regional license areas, as well as by further developing our operations in Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and making investments in MTS Belarus.

7

Our ability to increase our subscriber base depends upon the success of our network expansion. We have expended considerable amounts of resources to enable this expansion. Limited information regarding the markets into which we have or are considering expanding, either through acquisitions or new licenses, complicates accurate forecasts of future revenues from those regions, increasing the risk that we may overestimate these revenues.

In addition, we have expanded our network through acquisitions and we may continue to engage in further acquisitions. We may not be able to integrate previous or future acquisitions successfully or operate them profitably. Such integration requires significant time and effort from our senior management, who are also responsible for managing our existing operations. Such integration may also be difficult as our technical systems may differ from those of the acquired businesses. In addition, unpopular cost cutting measures may be required and control of cash flow may be difficult to establish. Any difficulties encountered in the transition and integration process could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

We also may face risks during the course of our expansion into countries outside of the Russian Federation. Differing cultures and more uncertain business operating environments could lead to lower profitability and higher risks to our business. For example, in 2005 we acquired a 51% stake in the company owning indirectly 100% of Bitel LLC (“Bitel”), a mobile operator holding a Global System for Mobile Communications, or GSM, 900/1800 license for the entire territory of the Kyrgyz Republic. In December 2005, Bitel’s corporate offices were seized by a third party following a ruling by the Kyrgyz Supreme Court. See “¾Legal Risks and Uncertainties¾Our inability to gain operational control over Bitel has prevented us from realizing the expected benefits of our acquisition and resulted in our write off of the costs relating to the purchase of Bitel, and we may face significant liabilities to the seller and Bitel.”

The buildout of our network is also subject to risks and uncertainties, which could delay the introduction of service in some areas and increase the cost of network construction, including difficulty in obtaining base station sites on commercially attractive terms. In addition, telecommunications equipment used in Russia, Ukraine and other CIS countries is subject to governmental certification, and periodic renewals of the same. The failure of any equipment we use to receive timely certification or re-certification could also hinder our expansion plans. To the extent we fail to expand our network on a timely basis, we could experience difficulty in expanding our subscriber base.

If we cannot interconnect cost-effectively with other telecommunications operators, we may be unable to provide services at competitive prices and therefore lose market share and revenues.

Our ability to provide commercially viable services depends on our ability to continue to interconnect cost-effectively with fixed line and mobile (zonal, intercity and international) operators in Russia, Ukraine and other countries in which we operate. Fees for interconnection are established by agreements with network operators and vary, depending on the network used, the nature of the call and the call destination.

In Russia, the government plans to privatize Svyazinvest, a holding company that controls Rostelecom, Russia’s primary domestic and international long distance operator, and certain regional fixed line operators. In Ukraine, the government plans to privatize Ukrtelecom, which has a market share of over 80% of all fixed line telecommunications services in Ukraine. The timing of these privatizations is not yet known, and it is unclear how these privatizations will affect our interconnection arrangements and costs.

Although Russian legislation requires that operators of public switched telephone networks, or PSTNs, may not refuse to provide interconnections or discriminate against one operator over another, we believe that, in practice, some public network operators attempt to impede wireless operators by delaying interconnection applications and establishing technical conditions for interconnection feasible only for certain operators. Any difficulties or delays in interconnecting cost-effectively with other networks could

8

hinder our ability to provide services at competitive prices or at all, causing us to lose market share and revenues, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Governmental regulation of our interconnect rates in Ukraine could adversely affect our results of operations.

Under the Ukrainian Telecommunications Law adopted in November 2003, the National Commission for the Regulation on Communications, or the NCRC, commencing January 1, 2005, is authorized to regulate the tariffs for public telecommunications services rendered by fixed line operators, whereas the mobile cellular operators (including UMC) are entitled to set their retail tariffs and negotiate interconnect rates with other operators. However, the NCRC would be entitled to regulate the interconnect rates of any mobile cellular operator declared a “dominant market force” by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, or the AMC. Although UMC currently has over a 41% market share of the wireless communications market in Ukraine, it has not been declared a dominant market force by the AMC. Government regulation of our interconnect rates could limit or decrease our interconnect revenues, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

In addition, we believe that the state-owned fixed line operator monopolies, Ukrtelecom and UTEL, are currently able to influence telecommunications policy and regulation and may cause substantial increases in interconnect rates for access to fixed line operators’ networks by mobile cellular operators. Such increases could cause our costs to increase, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Similarly, Ukrtelecom and UTEL may cause substantial decreases in interconnect rates for access to mobile cellular operators’ networks by fixed line operators, which could cause our revenues to decrease and materially adversely affect our results of operations.

If frequencies currently assigned to us are reassigned to other users or if we fail to obtain renewals of our frequency allocations, our network capacity will be constrained and our ability to expand limited, resulting in a loss of market share and lower revenues.

There is a limited number of frequencies available for wireless operators in each of the regions in which we operate or hold licenses to operate. We are dependent on access to adequate spectrum allocation in each market in which we operate in order to maintain and expand our subscriber base. While we believe that our current spectrum allocations are sufficient, frequency may not be allocated to us in the future in the quantities, with the geographic span and for time periods that would allow us to provide wireless services on a commercially feasible basis throughout all of our license areas. For example, the availability of frequencies in the GSM 900 MHz band in Ukraine is limited by the fact that the Ukrainian military has a number of frequencies for its exclusive use. While future capacity constraints could be reduced by an increase in the GSM frequencies allocated to us, including additional frequencies in the GSM 1800 MHz band, we may not be awarded some or any of the remaining GSM spectrum. In addition, the Ukrainian government is currently delaying the allocation of new frequencies to wireless communications operators in Ukraine which, in turn, may constrain our network capacity in those areas of Ukraine characterized by high subscriber usage.

A loss of allocated spectrum, which is not replaced by other adequate allocations, could also have a substantial adverse impact on our network capacity. In addition, frequency allocations are often issued for periods that are shorter than the terms of the licenses, and such allocations may not be renewed in a timely manner or at all. If our frequencies are revoked or we are unable to renew our frequency allocations, our network capacity would be constrained and our ability to expand limited, resulting in a loss of market share and lower revenues.

9

We may not realize the benefits we expect to receive from our investments in third-generation, or 3G, wireless services, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

On April 20, 2007, the Federal Communications Agency awarded Megafon, Vimpelcom and us a license to provide 3G services in the Russian Federation. The 3G license will allow us to provide mobile radio telephone services using the IMT-2000/UMTS standard. Historically, mobile operators that have developed 3G networks have experienced various difficulties and challenges, including a limited supply of 3G-compatible handsets, limited international roaming capabilities, as well as 3G software and network-related problems. We may experience similar problems or encounter new difficulties when developing our 3G network and may be unable to fully resolve them. For example, we cannot be certain that:

·       our 3G network and services will deliver the quality and level of service that our customers demand or prefer;

·       we will be able to provide all contemplated 3G services at reasonable prices and within a reasonable timeframe;

·       manufacturers and content providers will develop and offer products and services for our 3G network on a timely basis;

·       there will be sufficient demand for 3G services in the markets where we operate;

·       our 3G network will be commercially viable in all of the locations we are required to operate pursuant to our 3G license;

·       our competitors will not offer similar services at lower prices; and

·       changes in the Russian government’s policies, rules, regulations or practices will not affect our network rollout or our business operations.

In addition, Russian military authorities also use frequencies on the 3G spectrum. During the construction of the 3G network, we will have to ensure that there will not be any overlap of frequencies used by us for commercial purposes and the Russian military.

Moreover, licenses for the use of code division multiple access, or CDMA, technology have already been granted for the provision of fixed wireless services in a number of regions throughout Russia. CDMA is a second-generation digital cellular telephony technology that can be used for the provision of both wireless and fixed services. Currently, CDMA technology is offered by certain mobile operators in Russia using the NMT-450 standard. If CDMA operators were able to develop a widespread network throughout Russia, we would face increased competition.

Potential competition from other 3G or CDMA providers, together with any substantial problem with the rollout of our 3G network and provision of 3G services in the future, could materially adversely effect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because we lack a comprehensive back-up system for our network and insurance for our computer systems, a network or computer systems failure could prevent us from operating our business and lead to a loss of subscribers, damage to our reputation and violations of the terms of our licenses and subscriber contracts and penalties.

We are able to deliver services only to the extent that we can protect our network systems against damage from communications failures, computer viruses, power failures, natural disasters and unauthorized access. Any system failure, accident or security breach that causes interruptions in our operations could impair our ability to provide services to our customers and materially adversely affect our business and results of operations. In addition, to the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to customers’ data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential

10

information, we may incur liability as a result, including costs to remedy the damage caused by these disruptions or security breaches.

We have back-up capacity for our network management, operations and maintenance systems, but automatic transfer to back-up capacity is limited. In the event that the primary network management center was unable to function, significant disruptions to our systems would occur, including our inability to provide services. Disruptions in our services occurred in the Moscow license area on May 30, 2003, in the Kiev license area on August 31, 2004 and September 1-2, 2004, in the Nizhny Novgorod license area on December 10, 2004, 2005, in the Kirov license area on December 21, 2004, in the Ekaterinburg license area on February 21-22, 2005, in the Moscow license area on May 25-27, 2005, in the Saransk license area on September 1, 2005 and October 6, 2005 and in the Orenburg license area on November 15, 2005. These types of disruptions may recur, which could lead to a loss of subscribers, damage to our reputation, violations of the terms of our licenses and subscriber contracts and penalties.

Our computer and communications hardware is protected through physical and software safeguards. However, it is still vulnerable to fire, storm, flood, loss of power, telecommunications failures, interconnection failures, physical or software break-ins, viruses and similar events. Although we have insured our computer and communications hardware against fires, storms and floods, we do not carry business interruption insurance to protect us in the event of a catastrophe, even though such an event could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Failure to fulfill the terms of our licenses could result in their suspension or termination, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Each of our licenses requires service to be offered by a specific date and most contain further requirements as to network capacity and territorial coverage to be reached by specified dates. In addition, all of our licenses require us to comply with various telecommunications regulations relating to the use of radio frequencies and numbering capacity allocated to us, network construction and interconnection rules, among others. If we fail to comply with the requirements of applicable Russian, Ukrainian or other applicable legislation or we fail to meet any terms of our licenses, our licenses and other authorizations necessary for our operations may be suspended or terminated. A suspension or termination of our licenses or other necessary governmental authorizations could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

If we are unable to maintain our favorable brand image, we may be unable to attract new subscribers and retain existing subscribers, leading to loss of market share and revenues.

Our ability to attract new subscribers and retain existing subscribers depends in part on our ability to maintain what we believe to be our favorable brand image. Negative publicity or rumors regarding our company or shareholders and affiliates or our services could negatively affect this brand image, which could lead to loss of market share and revenues.

Our intellectual property rights are costly and difficult to protect, and we cannot guarantee that the steps we have taken to protect our property rights will be adequate.

We regard our copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and similar intellectual property, including our rights to certain domain names, as important to our continued success. We rely upon trademark and copyright law, trade secret protection and confidentiality or license agreements with our employees, customers, partners and others to protect our proprietary rights. Nonetheless, intellectual property rights are especially difficult to protect in the markets where we operate. In these markets, the regulatory agencies charged to protect intellectual property rights are inadequately funded, legislation is underdeveloped, piracy is commonplace and enforcement of court decisions is difficult.

11

In addition, litigation may be necessary to enforce our intellectual property rights, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others, or to defend against claims of infringement. Any such litigation may result in substantial costs and diversion of resources, and, if decided unfavorably to us, could have a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations. We also may incur substantial acquisition or settlement costs where doing so would strengthen or expand our intellectual property rights or limit our exposure to intellectual property claims of third parties. While we have successfully enforced our property rights in courts in the past, we cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully protect our property rights in the future.

Failure to renew our licenses or receive renewed licenses with similar terms to our existing licenses could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our telecommunications licenses expire in various years from 2007 to 2013 and may be renewed upon application to the relevant governmental authorities. Government officials in Russia and the other CIS countries in which we operate have broad discretion in deciding whether to renew a license, and may not renew licenses after their expiration. If licenses are renewed, they may be renewed with additional obligations, including payment obligations.

In addition, the license requirements in our current telecommunications licenses may not comply with the requirements set forth in the new regulations effective from January 1, 2006. Although such non-compliance will not invalidate our licenses, the Federal Service for Supervision in the Area of Mass Media, Communications and Protection of Cultural Heritage, or Rossvyazokhrankultura, is requiring communications operators to apply for amendments of all their licenses granted prior to January 1, 2004. We were not able to have all our licenses issued prior to January 1, 2004, amended prior to January 1, 2006. We are currently bringing our older licenses in line with the new requirements, and expect this process to be completed by the end of 2008. We will be subject to penalties for non-compliance if our licenses are suspended or terminated.

Failure to renew our telecommunications licenses or receive renewed licenses with similar terms to existing licenses could significantly limit our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We engage in transactions with related parties, which may present conflicts of interest, potentially resulting in the conclusion of transactions on terms not determined by market forces.

We have purchased interests in various mobile telecommunications companies from Sistema and entered into arrangements with subsidiaries of Sistema for advertising (Maxima and Mediaplanning), interconnection services (MTT), interconnection and telephone numbering capacity (MGTS, Comstar UTS and MTU-Inform), IT services and hardware purchases (Kvazar-Micro), banking services (MBRD), office leases (MGTS), use of the brand name (Sistema Telecom) and the purchase of a new billing system (Sitronics). Furthermore, we have entered into a number of equipment lease agreements with Invest-Svyaz–Holding, one of our shareholders and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sistema. Related party transactions with Sistema and other companies within the Sistema group may present conflicts of interest, potentially resulting in the conclusion of transactions on terms less favorable than could be obtained in arm’s-length transactions.

12

In the event that our minority shareholders or the minority shareholders of our subsidiaries were to challenge successfully past or future interested party transactions, or do not approve interested party transactions or other matters in the future, we could be limited in our operational flexibility and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected.

We own less than 100% of the equity interests in some of our subsidiaries. In addition, certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries have had other shareholders in the past. We and our subsidiaries in the past have carried out, and continue to carry out, transactions that may be considered to be “interested party transactions” under Russian law, requiring approval by disinterested directors, disinterested independent directors or disinterested shareholders depending on the nature of the transaction and parties involved. The provisions of Russian law defining which transactions must be approved as “interested party transactions” are subject to different interpretations and, as a result, we cannot assure you that our and our subsidiaries’ interpretation and application of these provisions will not be subject to challenge. Any such challenges, if successful, could result in the invalidation of transactions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, Russian law requires a three-quarters majority vote of the holders of voting stock present at a shareholders' meeting to approve certain transactions and other matters, including, for example, charter amendments, major transactions involving assets in excess of 50% of the assets of the company, repurchase of shares by the company and certain share issuances. In some cases, minority shareholders may not approve interested party transactions requiring their approval or other matters requiring minority shareholder or supermajority approval. In the event that these minority shareholders were to challenge successfully past interested party transactions, or do not approve interested party transactions or other matters in the future, we could be limited in our operational flexibility and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected.

Our competitive position and future prospects depend on our senior managers and other key personnel.

Our ability to maintain our competitive position and to implement our business strategy is dependent to a large degree on the services of our senior management team and other key personnel. Moreover, competition in Russia and in the other countries where we operate for personnel with relevant expertise is intense due to the relatively small number of qualified individuals and, as a result, we attempt to structure our compensation packages in a manner consistent with the evolving standards of the Russian labor market. We are not insured against the detrimental effects to our business resulting from the loss or dismissal of our key personnel. The loss or decline in services of members of our senior management team or an inability to attract, retain and motivate qualified key personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

All or part of our subscriber database, containing private information relating to our subscribers, was illegally copied and stolen in early 2003 and is currently publicly sold in Russia.

In January 2003, we discovered that part of our database of subscribers, containing private subscriber information, was illegally copied and stolen. The database contained information such as the names, addresses, home phone numbers, passport details and other personal information of approximately five million of our subscribers. Following its theft, this database was available for sale in Russia. In addition, in May 2003, certain subscriber databases of several operators in the North-West region, including those of MTS, MegaFon, Delta Telecom and two other operators, were stolen and are currently being sold.

In December 2003, we completed our internal investigation relating to the theft of our subscriber databases and found that these incidents were due to weaknesses in our internal security in relation to physical access to such information. We have taken measures that we believe will prevent such incidents from occurring in the future, but such incidents may nonetheless recur.

13

In January 2003, lawsuits were filed by two of our subscribers seeking compensation for damages resulting from the leak of the subscribers’ confidential information. While the subscribers subsequently withdrew their claims, if similar lawsuits are successful in the future, we might have to pay significant damages, including consequential damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Although we make every effort to protect confidential information, future breaches of security and leaks of confidential information, including information relating to our subscribers may negatively impact our reputation and our brand image and lead to a loss of market share, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We face increasing competition in the Russian and Ukrainian markets that may result in reduced operating margins and loss of market share, as well as different pricing, service or marketing policies.

The Russian and Ukrainian wireless telecommunications services markets are highly competitive. The trend in Russian and Ukrainian government licensing policies has been to increase competition among wireless telecommunications service providers. Russian and Ukrainian regulatory authorities have moved from granting exclusive licenses for each technology standard per region to granting multiple licenses covering the same territory. Increased competition, including from the potential introduction of new mobile operators in the markets where we operate, may result in reduced operating margins and loss of market share, as well as different pricing, service or marketing policies.

If the Federal Antimonopoly Service was to conclude that we acquired or created a new company in contravention of antimonopoly legislation, it could impose administrative sanctions and require the divestiture of this company or other assets.

Our businesses have grown substantially through the acquisition and formation of companies, many of which required the prior approval of, or subsequent notification to, the Federal Antimonopoly Service or its predecessor agencies. In part, relevant legislation in certain cases restricts the acquisition or formation of companies by groups of companies or individuals acting in concert without such prior approval or notification. While we believe that we have complied with the applicable legislation for our acquisitions and formation of new companies, this legislation is sometimes vague and subject to varying interpretations. If the Federal Antimonopoly Service was to conclude that an acquisition or formation of a new company was done in contravention of applicable legislation, it could impose administrative sanctions and require the divestiture of this company or other assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are found to have a dominant position in our markets, the government may regulate our tariffs and restrict our operations.

Under Russian legislation, the Federal Antimonopoly Service may categorize a company as a dominant force in a market. Current Russian legislation does not clearly define “market” in terms of the types of services or the geographic area. As of December 31, 2006, we were categorized as a company with a market share exceeding 35% in Moscow and the Moscow region. This classification, in turn, gives the Federal Antimonopoly Service the power to impose certain restrictions on the businesses of those entities.

Additionally, UMC, which has over a 40% market share of the Ukrainian wireless communications market, can be categorized as a company with a dominant position in the market and become subject to specific government-imposed restrictions. While UMC is currently not categorized as a company with a dominant position in the market, it reduced certain of its tariffs at the recommendation of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, or the AMC, in April 2004. See “Item 4. Information on Our Company—B. Business Overview—Regulation in Ukraine—Competition” for additional information.

14

If we or any of our subsidiaries were to be classified by the Federal Antimonopoly Service (or the AMC with respect to our operations in Ukraine) as a dominant market force or as having a dominant position in the market, the Federal Antimonopoly Service (or AMC, as the case may be) would have the power to impose certain restrictions on their businesses. Specifically, the Russian authorities may impose on us tariffs at levels that could be competitively disadvantageous. Moreover, our refusal to adjust our tariffs according to such government-determined rates could result in the withholding of all our revenues for the benefit of the state. Additionally, restrictions on our expansion or government-mandated withdrawal from regions or markets could reduce our subscriber base and prevent us from fully implementing our business strategy. We may also be required to complete additional license applications at an additional unexpected cost.

We rely heavily on independent dealers to enroll new subscribers. Our failure to maintain and further develop our extensive distribution network of independent dealers may lead to a decrease in our subscriber growth rate, loss of market share and revenues.

We enroll a vast majority of our subscribers through a network of independent dealers. Independent dealers have begun to consolidate their operations and, as a result, have increased their bargaining power when negotiating with mobile telecommunications operators, including us, and have been demanding contract terms and conditions that are less favorable to us. In addition, press reports suggest that certain of our competitors may enter into special preferential arrangements with large retail networks to promote their services to the detriment of other mobile operators on the Russian market. If we fail to maintain and further develop our distribution network of independent dealers, we may be forced to significantly expand our customer service centers and points of sales at a faster rate than we initially intended and incur additional unexpected costs. We may also experience a decrease in our subscriber growth rate, loss of market share and revenues.

Alleged medical risks of cellular technology may subject us to negative publicity or litigation, decrease our access to base station sites, diminish subscriber usage and hinder access to additional financing.

Electromagnetic emissions from transmitter masts and mobile handsets may harm the health of individuals exposed for long periods of time to these emissions. The actual or perceived health risks of transmitter masts and mobile handsets could materially adversely affect us by reducing subscriber growth, reducing usage per subscriber, increasing the number of product liability lawsuits, increasing the difficulty in obtaining or maintaining sites for base stations and/or reducing the financing available to the wireless communications industry.

Risks Relating to Our Financial Condition

Servicing and refinancing our indebtedness will require a significant amount of cash. Our ability to generate cash or obtain financing depends on many factors beyond our control.

We have a substantial amount of outstanding indebtedness, primarily consisting of the obligations we entered into in connection with our notes and bank loans. At December 31, 2006, our consolidated total debt, including capital lease obligations, was approximately $3,078.5 million. Our interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2006 was approximately $177.1 million, net of amounts capitalized.

15

Our ability to service, repay and refinance our indebtedness and to fund planned capital expenditures will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow or otherwise obtain funds necessary to make required payments, we may default under the terms of our indebtedness, and the holders of our indebtedness would be able to accelerate the maturity of such indebtedness, potentially causing cross-defaults under and acceleration of our other indebtedness. Furthermore, approximately half of the debt we have incurred is at floating rates of interest linked to indices, such as LIBOR and EURIBOR and, as a result, our debt obligations can increase if such indices rise. Although we have hedged the risks associated with certain of our debt linked to floating rates of interest, it may not be sufficient to offset significant increases in our other debt that we have not hedged against.

We may not be able to generate sufficient cash flow or access international capital markets or incur additional indebtedness to enable us to service or repay our indebtedness or to fund our other liquidity needs. We may be required to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness on or before maturity, sell assets, reduce or delay capital expenditures or seek additional capital. Refinancing or additional financing may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, and we may not be able to sell our assets, or if sold, the proceeds therefrom may not be sufficient to meet our debt service obligations. Our inability to generate sufficient cash flow to satisfy our debt service obligations, or to refinance debt on commercially reasonable terms, would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. See “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

A disposition by our controlling shareholder of its stake in our company could materially harm our business.

Under certain of our debt agreements, an event of default may be deemed to have occurred and/or we may be required to make a prepayment if Sistema disposes of its stake in our company or a third party takes a controlling position in our company. The occurrence of any such event of default or failure to make any required prepayment which leads to an event of default, could trigger cross default/cross acceleration provisions under certain of our other debt agreements. In such event, our obligations under one or more of these agreements could become immediately due and payable, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and our shareholders’ equity. If Sistema were to dispose of its stake in us, our company may be deprived of the benefits and resources that it derives from Sistema, which could harm our business.

If we are unable to obtain adequate capital, we may have to limit our operations substantially, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We will need to make significant capital expenditures, particularly in connection with the development, construction and maintenance of, and the purchasing of software for our GSM network. We spent approximately $1,358.9 million in 2004, approximately $2,181.3 million in 2005 and approximately $1,722.0 million in 2006 for the fulfillment of our capital spending plans. In addition, the acquisition of UMTS licenses and frequency allocations and the buildout of a UMTS network will require additional capital expenditures. However, future financings and cash flow from our operations may not be sufficient to meet our planned needs in the event of various unanticipated potential developments, including the following:

·       a lack of external financing sources;

·       changes in the terms of existing financing arrangements;

·       construction of the wireless networks at a faster rate or higher capital cost than anticipated;

16

·       pursuit of new business opportunities or investing in existing businesses that require significant investment;

·       acquisitions or development of any additional wireless licenses;

·       slower than anticipated subscriber growth;

·       slower than anticipated revenue growth;

·       regulatory developments;

·       changes in existing interconnect arrangements; or

·       a deterioration in the Russian economy.

Also, currently we are not able to raise equity financing through depositary receipts such as ADRs due to Russian securities regulations providing that no more than 35% (which, prior to December 31, 2005, and at the time of our initial public offering, was 40%) of a Russian company’s shares may be circulated abroad through sponsored depositary receipt programs. If we cannot obtain adequate funds to satisfy our capital requirements, we may need to limit our operations significantly, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in the exchange rate of the ruble against the U.S. dollar could adversely impact our costs.

A significant portion of our costs, expenditures and liabilities, including capital expenditures and borrowings (including our U.S. dollar-denominated notes), are either denominated in, or closely linked to, the U.S. dollar, while substantially all of our revenues are denominated in rubles. For example, we have had ruble-denominated tariffs and have been charging our subscribers in Russian rubles since January 1, 2007. As a result, the devaluation of the ruble against the U.S. dollar can adversely affect us by increasing our costs in ruble terms. If the ruble declines against the U.S. dollar and price increases cannot keep pace, we could have difficulty repaying or refinancing our U.S. dollar-denominated indebtedness, including our notes.

Inflation could increase our costs and adversely affect our results of operations.

The Russian economy has been characterized by high rates of inflation. In both 2005 and 2006, the inflation rate, combined with the nominal appreciation of the ruble, resulted in the appreciation of the ruble against the U.S. dollar in real terms. As we tend to experience inflation-driven increases in certain of our costs, including salaries and rents, which are sensitive to rises in the general price level in Russia, our costs will rise. In this situation, due to competitive pressures, we may not be able to raise the prices we charge for our products and services sufficiently to preserve operating margins. Accordingly, high rates of inflation in Russia could increase our costs and decrease our operating margins.

Our cash holdings are subject to devaluation.

We invest our excess cash in a limited number of ruble-denominated instruments. Any balances maintained in rubles will give rise to losses if the ruble devalues against the U.S. dollar.

Additionally, Russian companies must repatriate 100% of offshore foreign currency earnings to Russia. In 2005, Russian companies were required to convert 10% of those earnings into rubles within seven days of receipt. This conversion requirement was abolished in May 2006. We earned approximately $93.3 million, $99.4 million and $106.9 million in foreign currency in 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively, primarily from our roaming agreements. This requirement further increases balances in our ruble-denominated accounts and, consequently, our exposure to devaluation risk.

17

Indentures relating to our notes and our controlling shareholder Sistema’s notes contain, and some of our loan agreements contain, restrictive covenants, which limit our ability to incur debt and to engage in various activities.

The indentures relating to our outstanding notes contain covenants limiting our ability to incur debt, create liens on our properties and enter into sale and lease-back transactions. The indentures also contain covenants limiting our ability to merge or consolidate with another person or convey our properties and assets to another person, as well as our ability to sell or transfer any of our or our subsidiaries’ GSM licenses for the Moscow, St. Petersburg, Krasnodar and Ukraine license areas. Some of our loan agreements contain similar and other covenants. Failure to comply with these covenants could cause a default and result in the debt becoming immediately due and payable, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, Sistema, which controls 53.1% of our outstanding shares and consolidates our results in its financial statements, is subject to various covenants in the indentures related to its $350.0 million in aggregate principal amount of notes due 2008 and $350.0 million in aggregate principal amount of notes due 2011, which impose restrictions on Sistema and its restricted subsidiaries (including us) with respect to, inter alia, incurrence of indebtedness, creation of liens and disposal of assets. In these indentures, Sistema undertakes that it will not, and will not permit its restricted subsidiaries (including us) to, incur indebtedness unless a certain debt/OIBDA (as defined therein) ratio is met. In addition to us, Sistema has various other businesses that require capital and, therefore, the consolidated Sistema group’s capacity to incur indebtedness otherwise available to us could be diverted to its other businesses. Sistema may also enter into other agreements in the future that may further restrict it and its restricted subsidiaries (including us) from engaging in these and other activities. We expect Sistema to exercise its control over us in order for Sistema, as a consolidated group, to meet its obligations under its current and future financings and other agreements, which could materially limit our ability to obtain additional financing required for the implementation of our business strategy.

If a change in control occurs, our noteholders and other debt holders may require us to redeem notes or other debt, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Under the terms of our outstanding notes, if a change in control occurs, our noteholders will have the right to require us to redeem notes not previously called for redemption. The price we will be required to pay upon such event will be 101% of the principal amount of the notes, plus accrued interest to the redemption date. A change in control will be deemed to have occurred in any of the following circumstances:

·       Any person acquires beneficial ownership of 50% or more of the total voting power of all shares of our common stock; provided that the following transactions would not be deemed to result in a change in control:

·        any acquisition by Sistema or its subsidiaries that results in the 50% threshold being exceeded; and

·        any acquisition by us, our subsidiary or our employee benefit plan.

·       We merge or consolidate with or into, or convey, sell, lease or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of our assets to, another entity or another entity merges into us and, immediately following such transaction, Sistema does not beneficially own at least 50% of the total voting power of all shares of common stock of such entity.

·       We no longer beneficially own more than 50% of the issuer’s share capital.

18

If a change in control occurs, and our noteholders and other debt holders exercise their right to require us to redeem all of their notes or debt, such event could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Russian companies can be forced into liquidation on the basis of formal non-compliance with certain requirements of Russian law.

Certain provisions of Russian law may allow a court to order liquidation of a Russian legal entity on the basis of its formal non-compliance with certain requirements during formation, reorganization or during its operation. There have been cases in the past in which formal deficiencies in the establishment process of a Russian legal entity or non-compliance with provisions of Russian law have been used by Russian courts as a basis for liquidation of a legal entity. Weaknesses in the Russian legal system create an uncertain legal environment, which makes the decisions of a Russian court or a governmental authority difficult, if not impossible, to predict. If involuntary liquidation were to occur, such liquidation could lead to significant negative consequences for our group.

For example, in Russian corporate law, negative net assets calculated on the basis of Russian accounting standards as at the end of the second or any subsequent year of a company’s operation can serve as a basis for a court to order the liquidation of the company upon a claim by governmental authorities. Many Russian companies have negative net assets due to very low historical asset values reflected on their Russian accounting standards balance sheets; however, their solvency, i.e., their ability to pay debts as they come due, is not otherwise adversely affected by such negative net assets. The amount of net assets of some of our subsidiaries is below the minimum legal requirements Although we are currently taking steps to remedy this and these subsidiaries continue to meet all of their obligations to creditors, there is a minimal risk of their liquidation.

Risks Relating to Our Countries of Operation

Economic Risks

Economic instability in the countries where we operate could adversely affect our business.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the economies of the countries where we operate have experienced at various times:

·       significant declines in gross domestic product;

·       hyperinflation;

·       an unstable currency;

·       high government debt relative to gross domestic product;

·       a weak banking system providing limited liquidity to domestic enterprises;

·       high levels of loss-making enterprises that continued to operate due to the lack of effective bankruptcy proceedings;

·       significant use of barter transactions and illiquid promissory notes to settle commercial transactions;

·       widespread tax evasion;

·       growth of a black and gray market economy;

·       pervasive capital flight;

·       high levels of corruption and the penetration of organized crime into the economy;

19

·       significant increases in unemployment and underemployment; and

·       the impoverishment of a large portion of the population.

Although the countries where we operate have benefited recently from the increase in global commodity prices, providing an increase in disposable income and an increase in consumer spending, the economies of these countries have been subject to abrupt downturns in the past. In particular, on August 17, 1998, in the face of a rapidly deteriorating economic situation, the Russian government defaulted on its ruble-denominated securities, the Central Bank of Russia stopped its support of the ruble and a temporary moratorium was imposed on certain foreign currency payments. These actions resulted in an immediate and severe devaluation of the ruble and a sharp increase in the rate of inflation; a substantial decline in the prices of Russian debt and equity securities; and an inability of Russian issuers to raise funds in the international capital markets. Certain other CIS countries, including Ukraine and Belarus, were similarly affected by these events.

These problems were aggravated by a major banking crisis in the Russian banking sector after the events of August 17, 1998, as evidenced by the termination of the banking licenses of a number of major Russian banks. This further impaired the ability of the banking sector to act as a consistent source of liquidity to Russian companies and resulted in the losses of bank deposits in some cases.

Recently, the Russian and Ukrainian economies have experienced positive trends, such as the increase in the gross domestic product, relatively stable national currencies, strong domestic demand, rising real wages and a reduced rate of inflation; however, these trends may not continue or may be abruptly reversed and, if this happens, our businesses in these countries could suffer.

The Russian banking system remains underdeveloped, and another banking crisis could place severe liquidity constraints on our business.

Russia’s banking and other financial systems are less developed or regulated in comparison with other countries, and Russian legislation relating to banks and bank accounts is subject to varying interpretations and inconsistent application. The August 1998 financial crisis resulted in the bankruptcy and liquidation of many Russian banks and almost entirely eliminated the developing market for commercial bank loans at that time. Many Russian banks currently do not meet international banking standards, and the transparency of the Russian banking sector in some respects still lags far behind internationally accepted norms. Aided by inadequate supervision by the regulators, certain banks do not follow existing Central Bank of Russia regulations with respect to lending criteria, credit quality, loan loss reserves or diversification of exposure. Furthermore, in Russia, bank deposits made by corporate entities generally are not insured.

Recently, there has been a rapid increase in lending by Russian banks, which many believe has been accompanied by a deterioration in the credit quality of the borrowers. In addition, a robust domestic corporate debt market is leading to Russian banks increasingly holding large amounts of Russian corporate ruble bonds in their portfolios, which is further deteriorating the risk profile of Russian bank assets. The serious deficiencies in the Russian banking sector, combined with the deterioration in the credit portfolios of Russian banks, may result in the banking sector being more susceptible to market downturns or economic slowdowns, including due to Russian corporate defaults that may occur during any such market downturn or economic slowdown. In addition, the Central Bank of Russia has from time to time revoked the licenses of certain Russian banks, which resulted in market rumors about additional bank closures and many depositors withdrawing their savings. If a banking crisis were to occur, Russian companies would be subject to severe liquidity constraints due to the limited supply of domestic savings and the withdrawal of foreign funding sources that would occur during such a crisis.

20

There is currently a limited number of sufficiently creditworthy Russian banks. We hold the bulk of our excess ruble and foreign currency cash in Russian banks, including subsidiaries of foreign banks, in part, because we are required to do so by Central Bank of Russia regulations and because the ruble is not transferable or convertible outside of Russia. Another banking crisis or the bankruptcy or insolvency of the banks from which we receive or with which we hold our funds could result in the loss of our deposits or affect our ability to complete banking transactions in Russia, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The infrastructure in Russia and Ukraine is inadequate, which could disrupt normal business activities, including our business operations.

The physical infrastructure in Russia and Ukraine largely dates back to Soviet times and has not been adequately funded and maintained over the past decade. Particularly affected are the rail and road networks, power generation and transmission systems, communication systems and building stock. In May 2005, a fire and explosion in one of the Moscow power substations built in 1963 caused a major power outage in a large section of Moscow and some surrounding regions. The blackout disrupted ground electric transport, including the metro system, led to road traffic accidents and massive traffic congestion, disrupted electricity and water supply in office and residential buildings and affected mobile communications. The trading on exchanges and the operation of many banks, stores and markets were also halted. In addition, the road conditions throughout Russia and Ukraine are poor with many roads not meeting even minimum standards. The Russian and Ukrainian governments are actively considering plans to reorganize the nations’ rail, electricity and communications systems. Any such reorganization may result in increased charges and tariffs while failing to generate the anticipated capital investment needed to repair, maintain and improve these systems.

The deterioration of the physical infrastructure in Russia and Ukraine harms the national economies, adds costs to doing business in these countries and generally disrupts normal business activities. These difficulties can impact us directly; for example, we keep portable electrical generators to help us maintain base station operations in the event of power outages. Further deterioration of the physical infrastructure in Russia and Ukraine, as well as the other countries where we operate, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Fluctuations in the global economy may materially adversely affect the economies of the countries where we operate and our business in these countries.

The countries’ economies where we operate are vulnerable to market downturns and economic slowdowns elsewhere in the world. As has happened in the past, financial problems or an increase in the perceived risks associated with investing in emerging economies could dampen foreign investment in Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Belarus and businesses in these countries could face severe liquidity constraints, further adversely affecting their economies. Additionally, because Russia and Turkmenistan produce and export large amounts of oil and gas, the Russian and Turkmen economies are especially vulnerable to the price of oil and gas on the world market and a decline in the price of oil and gas could slow or disrupt the Russian and Turkmen economies. Recent military conflicts and international terrorist activity have also significantly impacted oil and gas prices, and pose additional risks to the Russian economy. Russia and Ukraine are also major producers and exporters of metal products and their economies are vulnerable to world commodity prices and the imposition of tariffs and/or antidumping measures by the United States, the European Union or by other principal export markets.

21

Political and Social Risks

Political and governmental instability in Russia and Ukraine could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and the value of our shares and ADSs.

Since 1991, Russia has sought to transform from a one-party state with a centrally-planned economy to a democracy with a market economy. As a result of the sweeping nature of the reforms, and the failure of some of them, the Russian political system remains vulnerable to popular dissatisfaction, including dissatisfaction with the results of privatizations in the 1990s, as well as to demands for autonomy from particular regional and ethnic groups.

Current and future changes in the Russian and Ukrainian governments, major policy shifts or lack of consensus between various branches of the government and powerful economic groups could disrupt or reverse economic and regulatory reforms. In addition, the Ukrainian and Russian presidential elections scheduled for 2007 and 2008, respectively, could bring more volatility to these markets. Any disruption or reversal of reform policies could lead to political or governmental instability or the occurrence of conflicts among powerful economic groups, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and the value of our shares and ADSs.

Potential conflict between central and regional authorities could create an uncertain operating environment hindering our long-term planning ability.

The Russian Federation is a federation of 86 sub-federal political units, consisting of republics, territories, regions, cities of federal importance and autonomous regions and districts. The delineation of authority and jurisdiction among the members of the Russian Federation and the federal government is, in many instances, unclear and remains contested. Lack of consensus between the federal government and local or regional authorities could result in the enactment of conflicting legislation at various levels and may lead to political instability. In particular, conflicting laws have been enacted in the areas of privatization, land legislation and licensing. Some of these laws and governmental and administrative decisions implementing them, as well as certain transactions consummated pursuant to them, have in the past been challenged in the courts, and such challenges may occur in the future. This lack of consensus may hinder our long-term planning efforts and create uncertainties in our operating environment, both of which may prevent us from effectively and efficiently implementing our business strategy.

Additionally, ethnic, religious, historical and other divisions have, on occasion, given rise to tensions and, in certain cases, military conflict, which can halt normal economic activity and disrupt the economies of neighboring regions. For example, violence and attacks relating to the Chechen conflict have spread to other parts of Russia and several terrorist attacks have been carried out by Chechen terrorists in other parts of Russia, including in Moscow. The further intensification of violence, including terrorist attacks and suicide bombings, or its spread to other parts of Russia, could have significant political consequences, including the imposition of a state of emergency in some or all of Russia. Moreover, any terrorist attacks and the resulting heightened security measures are likely to cause disruptions to domestic commerce and exports from Russia. These factors could materially adversely affect our business and the value of our shares and ADSs.

In Ukraine, tensions between certain regional authorities and the central government were ignited following the November 2004 presidential elections. Amid the mass demonstrations and strikes that took place throughout Ukraine to protest the election process and results, the regional authorities in three regions in eastern Ukraine threatened to conduct referendums on creating a separate, autonomous region within Ukraine. Though the regional authorities backed down from these threats, and tensions in Ukraine have subsided following the invalidation of the November election results and the new presidential election held in December 2004, the long-term effects of these events and their effect on

22

relations among Ukrainians is not yet fully known. If such tensions in Ukraine are re-ignited in the future, our long-term planning ability and operations in Ukraine could suffer.

Recent political turmoil in Ukraine could have a material adverse effect on our operations in Ukraine and on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Ukrainian parliament voted to dismiss the Ukrainian government on January 10, 2006, less than four months after the last government was dismissed by the Ukrainian president. The latest vote occurred in the wake of widespread criticism of the government for signing a controversial deal on gas supplies from Russia earlier in the month and ahead of the Ukrainian parliamentary elections in March 2006. As a result of the March elections, the previous government continued to perform its duties until the appointment of a new government in August 2006.

Changes to the Ukrainian constitution introduced on January 1, 2006 shifted important powers from the president to parliament, including the right to name the prime minister and form a government. With these new powers, there is a risk that the impasse between the president and parliament will evolve into a protracted political struggle and cause Ukraine’s economy to decline. Any disruption or reversal of political reforms in Ukraine could cause a deterioration in the political, social and economic environment in Ukraine which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our operations in Ukraine, our business, financial condition and results of operations. See also “Risks Relating to Our Business—A decline in relations between Russia and the other countries where we operate could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.”

Crime and corruption could disrupt our ability to conduct our business.

The political and economic changes in the countries where we operate in recent years have resulted in significant dislocations of authority. The local and international press have reported that significant organized criminal activity has arisen, particularly in large metropolitan centers. Property crime in large cities has increased substantially. In addition, the local and international press have reported high levels of corruption, including the bribing of officials for the purpose of initiating investigations by government agencies. Press reports have also described instances in which government officials engaged in selective investigations and prosecutions to further the commercial interests of certain government officials or certain companies or individuals. Additionally, some members of the media in the countries we operate in regularly publish disparaging articles in return for payment. The depredations of organized or other crime, demands of corrupt officials or claims that we have been involved in official corruption could result in negative publicity, disrupt our ability to conduct our business and could thus materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Social instability could increase support for renewed centralized authority, nationalism or violence and thus materially adversely affect our operations.

The failure of the government and many private enterprises to pay full salaries on a regular basis and the failure of salaries and benefits generally to keep pace with the rapidly increasing cost of living have led in the past, and could lead in the future, to labor and social unrest. Labor and social unrest may have political, social and economic consequences, such as increased support for a renewal of centralized authority; increased nationalism, including restrictions on foreign involvement in the economies of the countries where we have operations; and increased violence. An occurrence of any of the foregoing events could restrict our operations and lead to the loss of revenues, materially adversely affecting our operations.

23

Legal Risks and Uncertainties

Weaknesses relating to the legal system and legislation in the countries where we operate create an uncertain environment for investment and business activity, which could have a material adverse effect on the value of our shares and ADSs.

Each of the countries we operate in is still developing the legal framework required to support a market economy. The following risk factors relating to these legal systems create uncertainty with respect to the legal and business decisions that we make, many of which uncertainties do not exist in countries with more developed market economies:

·       inconsistencies between and among the Constitution, federal and regional laws, presidential decrees and governmental, ministerial and local orders, decisions, resolutions and other acts;

·       conflicting local, regional and federal rules and regulations;

·       the lack of judicial and administrative guidance on interpreting legislation;

·       the relative inexperience of judges and courts in interpreting legislation;

·       the lack of an independent judiciary;

·       a high degree of discretion on the part of governmental authorities, which could result in arbitrary actions such as suspension or termination of our licenses; and

·       poorly developed bankruptcy procedures that are subject to abuse.

The recent nature of much of Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Turkmen and Belarusian legislation, the lack of consensus about the scope, content and pace of economic and political reform and the rapid evolution of these legal systems in ways that may not always coincide with market developments place the enforceability and underlying constitutionality of laws in doubt and results in ambiguities, inconsistencies and anomalies. In addition, Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Turkmen and Belarusian legislation often contemplates implementing regulations that have not yet been promulgated, leaving substantial gaps in the regulatory infrastructure. All of these weaknesses could affect our ability to enforce our rights under our licenses and contracts, or to defend ourselves against claims by others. We cannot assure you that regulators, judicial authorities or third parties will not challenge our internal procedures and bylaws, as well as our compliance with applicable laws, decrees and regulations.

The judiciary’s lack of independence and overall inexperience, the difficulty of enforcing court decisions and governmental discretion in enforcing claims could prevent us or holders of our shares and ADSs from obtaining effective redress in a court proceeding, materially adversely affecting the value of our shares and ADSs.

The independence of the judicial system and its immunity from economic, political and nationalistic influences in each of Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Belarus remain largely untested. The court system in each of these countries is understaffed and underfunded. Judges and courts are generally inexperienced in the area of business and corporate law. Judicial precedents generally have no binding effect on subsequent decisions. Not all Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Turkmen and Belarusian legislation and court decisions are readily available to the public or organized in a manner that facilitates understanding. The judicial systems in these countries can be slow or unjustifiably swift. Enforcement of court orders can, in practice, be very difficult to achieve. All of these factors make judicial decisions in these countries difficult to predict and effective redress uncertain. Additionally, court claims are often used in furtherance of political and commercial aims or infighting. We may be subject to such claims and may not be able to receive a fair hearing. Additionally, court orders are not always enforced or followed by law

24

enforcement agencies, and the government may attempt to invalidate court decisions by backdating or retroactively applying relevant legislative changes.

These uncertainties also extend to property rights. For example, during Russia and Ukraine’s transformation from centrally planned economies to market economies, legislation has been enacted in both countries to protect private property against expropriation and nationalization. However, it is possible that due to the lack of experience in enforcing these provisions and due to political factors, these protections would not be enforced in the event of an attempted expropriation or nationalization. Expropriation or nationalization of any of our entities, their assets or portions thereof, including UMC, potentially without adequate compensation, would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our inability to gain operational control over Bitel has prevented us from realizing the expected benefits of our acquisition and resulted in our write off of the costs relating to the purchase of Bitel, and we may face significant liabilities to the seller and Bitel.

In December 2005, our wholly-owned subsidiary MTS Finance S.A. acquired a 51.0% stake in Tarino Limited (Tarino) from Nomihold Securities Inc. (Nomihold) for $150.0 million in cash. Tarino was at that time the indirect owner, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, of Bitel LLC, a Kyrgyz company holding a GSM 900/1800 license for the entire territory of Kyrgyzstan.

Following the purchase of the 51.0% stake, MTS Finance entered into a put and call option agreement with Nomihold to acquire the remaining 49.0% interest in Tarino (and, therefore, the remaining shares in Bitel). The call option was exercisable by MTS Finance from November 22, 2005 to November 17, 2006, and the put option was exercisable by Nomihold from November 18, 2006 to December 8, 2006. The call and put option price was $170.0 million.

Following a decision of the Kyrgyz Supreme Court on December 15, 2005, Bitel’s corporate offices were seized by a third party. As we did not regain operational control over Bitel’s operations in 2005, we accounted for our 51.0% investment in Bitel at cost as at December 31, 2005. We appealed the decision of the Kyrgyz Supreme Court in 2006, but the court has not acted within the time period permitted for appeal. We subsequently sought the review of this dispute over the ownership of Bitel by the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan to determine whether further investigation could be undertaken by the Kyrgyz authorities. In January 2007, the Prosecutor General informed us that there were no grounds for involvement by the Prosecutor General’s office in the dispute and that no legal basis existed for us to appeal the decision of the Kyrgyz Supreme Court. Consequently, we decided to write off the costs relating to the purchase of the 51% stake in Bitel, which has been reflected in our annual consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2006.

In November 2006, MTS Finance received a letter from Nomihold purporting to exercise the put option and sell its remaining stakes in Tarino (and, therefore, Bitel) for $170.0 million to MTS Finance. In January 2007, Nomihold commenced an arbitration proceeding against MTS Finance in the London Court of International Arbitration in order to compel MTS Finance to purchase the remaining shares. Nomihold seeks specific performance of the put option, unspecified monetary damages, interest, and costs. The matter is currently pending. MTS Finance is vigorously contesting this action and has asked the arbitration tribunal to dismiss Nomihold’s claim.

A group of individual shareholders of Sistema has agreed to compensate MTS Finance for any potential loss up to $170 million should the arbitration decision regarding exercise of the aforementioned put option prove unfavorable to MTS Finance. Notwithstanding this, in the event MTS Finance does not prevail in the arbitration, we could be liable to Nomihold for $170.0 million plus any additional amounts that the arbitration tribunal might award to Nomihold.

25

In connection with the above mentioned put option exercise and the uncertainty as to the resolution of the dispute with Nomihold, we have recognized a liability in the amount of $170.0 million for the purposes of our annual consolidated financial statements with a corresponding charge to other non-operation expenses as of December 31, 2006 and for the year then ended.

In addition, three Isle of Man companies affiliated with us (KFG Companies) have been named defendants in lawsuits filed by Bitel in the Isle of Man seeking the return of dividends received by these three companies in the first quarter of 2005 from Bitel in the amount of approximately $25.2 million plus compensatory damages, and to recover approximately $3.7 million in losses and accrued interest. In the event that the defendants do not prevail in these lawsuits, we may be liable to Bitel for such claims. The KFG Companies have also asserted counterclaims against Bitel, and claims against other defendants including Altimo and Altimo Holding, for the wrongful appropriation and control of Bitel. It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome or resolution of these claims.

In a separate arbitration proceeding initiated against the KFG Companies by Kyrgyzstan Mobitel Investment Company Limited (KMIC) under the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration, the arbitration tribunal in a recent award found that the KFG Companies breached a May 31, 2003 Transfer Agreement concerning the shares of Bitel. The Transfer Agreement was made between the KFG Companies and IPOC International Growth Fund Limited (IPOC) although IPOC subsequently assigned its interest to KMIC, and KMIC was the claimant in the arbitration. The tribunal ruled that the KFG Companies breached the Transfer Agreement when they failed to establish a date on which the equity interests in Bitel were to be transferred to KMIC and by failing to take other steps to transfer the Bitel interests. This breach occurred prior to MTS Finance’s acquisition of the KFG Companies. The arbitration tribunal ruled that KMIC is entitled only to damages in an amount to be determined in future proceedings. We are not able to predict the outcome of these proceedings or the amount of damages to be paid, if any.

Selective or arbitrary government action could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Governmental authorities in the countries where we operate have a high degree of discretion and, at times, act selectively or arbitrarily, without hearing or prior notice, and sometimes in a manner that is inconsistent with legislation or influenced by political or commercial considerations. Selective or arbitrary governmental actions have reportedly included the denial or withdrawal of licenses, sudden and unexpected tax audits and claims, criminal prosecutions and civil actions. Federal and local government entities have also used ordinary defects in matters surrounding share issuances and registration as pretexts for court claims and other demands to invalidate such issuances and registrations or to void transactions. Moreover, the government also has the power in certain circumstances, by regulation or government act, to interfere with the performance of, nullify or terminate contracts. Standard & Poor’s has expressed concerns that “Russian companies and their investors can be subjected to government pressure through selective implementation of regulations and legislation that is either politically motivated or triggered by competing business groups.” In this environment, our competitors may receive preferential treatment from the government, potentially giving them a competitive advantage over us.

In addition, recently, the Russian tax authorities have aggressively brought tax evasion claims relating to Russian companies’ use of tax-optimization schemes, and press reports have speculated that these enforcement actions have been selective and politically motivated. Selective or arbitrary government action, if directed at us, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects

26

Failure to comply with existing laws and regulations or to obtain all approvals, authorizations and permits required to operate telecommunications equipment, or the findings of government inspections or increased governmental regulation of our operations, could result in a disruption in our business and substantial additional compliance costs and sanctions.

Our operations and properties are subject to regulation by various government entities and agencies in connection with obtaining and renewing various licenses, approvals, authorizations and permits, as well as with ongoing compliance with existing laws, regulations and standards. Regulatory authorities exercise considerable discretion in matters of enforcement and interpretation of applicable laws, regulations and standards, the issuance and renewal of licenses, approvals, authorizations and permits and in monitoring licensees’ compliance with the terms thereof. Russian authorities have the right to, and frequently do, conduct periodic inspections of our operations and properties throughout the year. Any such future inspections may conclude that we or our subsidiaries have violated laws, decrees or regulations, and we may be unable to refute such conclusions or remedy the violations. See also “—The regulatory environment for telecommunications in Russia and Ukraine is uncertain and subject to political influence or manipulation, which may result in negative and arbitrary regulatory and other decisions against us on the basis of other than legal considerations and in preferential treatment for our competitors.”

Due primarily to delays in the issuance of permits, approvals and authorizations by regulatory authorities, frequently it is not possible to procure all of the permits for each of our base stations or other aspects of our network before we put the base stations into commercial operation or to amend or maintain all of the permits when we make changes to the location or technical specifications of our base stations. At times, there can be a significant number of base stations or other communications facilities and other aspects of our networks for which we do not have final permits to operate and there can be delays in obtaining the final permits, approvals and authorizations for particular base stations or other communications facilities and other aspects of our networks.

Our failure to comply with existing laws and regulations or to obtain all approvals, authorizations and permits required to operate telecommunications equipment or the findings of government inspections may also result in the imposition of fines or penalties or more severe sanctions including the suspension, amendment or termination of our licenses, approvals, authorizations and permits, or in requirements that we cease certain of our business activities, or in criminal and administrative penalties applicable to our officers. Moreover, an agreement or transaction entered into in violation of Russian law may be invalidated and/or unwound by a court decision. Any such decisions, requirements or sanctions, or any increase in governmental regulation of our operations, could result in a disruption of our business and substantial additional compliance costs and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Developing corporate and securities laws and regulations in Russia could limit our ability to attract future investment.

The regulation and supervision of the securities market, financial intermediaries and issuers are considerably less developed in Russia than, for example, in the United States and Western Europe. Securities laws, including those relating to corporate governance, disclosure and reporting requirements have only recently been adopted while other laws concerning anti-fraud, insider trading and fiduciary duties of directors and officers are still relatively undeveloped. In addition, the Russian securities market is regulated by several different authorities, which are often in competition with each other. These include:

·       the Federal Service for the Financial Markets;

·       the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service;

·       the Central Bank of Russia; and

27

·       various professional self-regulatory organizations.

The regulations of these various authorities are not always coordinated and may be contradictory.

In addition, Russian corporate and securities rules and regulations can change rapidly, which may materially adversely affect our ability to conduct securities-related transactions. While some important areas are subject to virtually no oversight, the regulatory requirements imposed on Russian issuers in other areas result in delays in conducting securities offerings and in accessing the capital markets. It is often unclear whether or how regulations, decisions and letters issued by the various regulatory authorities apply to us. As a result, we may be subject to fines and/or other enforcement measures despite our best efforts at compliance, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

There is little minority shareholder protection in Russia.

Minority shareholder protection under Russian law principally derives from supermajority shareholder approval requirements for certain corporate actions, as well as from the ability of a shareholder to demand that the company purchase the shares held by that shareholder if that shareholder voted against or did not participate in voting on certain types of actions. Companies are also required by Russian law to obtain the approval of disinterested shareholders for certain transactions with interested parties. In practice, enforcement of these protections has been poor. Shareholders of some companies have also suffered as a result of fraudulent bankruptcies initiated by hostile creditors.

The supermajority shareholder approval requirement is met by a vote of 75% of all voting shares that are present at a shareholders’ meeting. Thus, controlling shareholders owning slightly less than 75% of outstanding shares of a company may have a 75% or more voting power if certain minority shareholders are not present at the meeting. In situations where controlling shareholders effectively have 75% or more of the voting power at a shareholders’ meeting, they are in a position to approve amendments to the charter of the company or significant transactions including asset transfers, which could be prejudicial to the interests of minority shareholders. It is possible that our controlling shareholder in the future may not run us and our subsidiaries for the benefit of minority shareholders, and this could have a material adverse effect on the value of the shares and ADSs.

While the Federal Law on Joint Stock Companies of December 26, 1995, or the Joint Stock Companies Law, provides that shareholders owning not less than 1% of the company’s stock may bring an action for damages on behalf of the company, Russian courts to date do not have much experience with such lawsuits. Russian law does not contemplate class action litigation. Accordingly, your ability to pursue legal redress against us may be limited, reducing the protections available to you as a holder of the shares and ADSs.

28

Shareholder liability under Russian legislation could cause us to become liable for the obligations of our subsidiaries.

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation dated January 26, 1996 and the Joint Stock Companies Law generally provide that shareholders in a Russian joint stock company are not liable for the obligations of the joint stock company and bear only the risk of loss of their investment. This may not be the case, however, when one entity is capable of determining decisions made by another entity. The entity capable of determining such decisions is deemed an “effective parent.” The entity whose decisions are capable of being so determined is deemed an “effective subsidiary.” Under the Joint Stock Companies Law, an effective parent bears joint and several responsibility for transactions concluded by the effective subsidiary in carrying out these decisions if:

·       this decision-making capability is provided for in the charter of the effective subsidiary or in a contract between the companies; and

·       the effective parent gives obligatory directions to the effective subsidiary.

In addition, an effective parent is secondarily liable for an effective subsidiary’s debts if an effective subsidiary becomes insolvent or bankrupt resulting from the action or inaction of an effective parent. This is the case no matter how the effective parent’s ability to determine decisions of the effective subsidiary arises. For example, this liability could arise through ownership of voting securities or by contract. In these instances, other shareholders of the effective subsidiary may claim compensation for the effective subsidiary’s losses from the effective parent which caused the effective subsidiary to take action or fail to take action knowing that such action or failure to take action would result in losses. Accordingly, we could be liable in some cases for the debts of our subsidiaries. This liability could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Shareholder rights provisions under Russian law could impose additional obligations and costs on us.

Russian law provides that shareholders that vote against or abstain from voting on certain matters have the right to sell their shares to the company at market value in accordance with Russian law. The decisions that trigger this right to sell shares include:

·       decisions with respect to a reorganization;

·       the approval by shareholders of a “major transaction,” which, in general terms, is a transaction involving property worth more than 50% of the gross book value of our assets calculated according to Russian accounting standards, regardless of whether the transaction is actually consummated; and

·       the amendment of our charter in a manner that limits shareholder rights.

Our (or, as the case may be, our subsidiaries’) obligation to purchase shares in these circumstances, which is limited to 10% of the company’s net assets calculated in accordance with Russian accounting standards at the time the matter at issue is voted upon, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Limitations on foreign investment could impair the value of your investment and could hinder our access to additional capital.

Russian and Ukrainian legislation governing foreign investment activities does not prohibit or restrict foreign investment in the telecommunications industry. However, a lack of consensus exists over the manner and scope of government control over the telecommunications industry. While draft legislation protecting the rights of foreign investors specifically in the telecommunications industry has been considered at various times, the Law on Foreign Investment in the Russian Federation does not provide

29

any specific protections in this regard, nor are there specific protections in Ukraine. Because the telecommunications industry is widely viewed as strategically important to Russia and Ukraine, governmental control over the telecommunications industry may increase, and foreign investment in or control over the industry may be limited. Any such increase in governmental control or limitation on foreign investment could impair the value of your investment and could hinder our access to additional capital.

The implementation of the Federal Law on Communications imposed an additional financial burden on us and may restrict our operations, which could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The Federal Law on Communications, which came into force on January 1, 2004, provided for the establishment of a “universal services reserve fund” for the purpose of supporting communications companies operating in less developed regions of Russia. This reserve fund is funded by a levy imposed on all communication services operators, including us. In 2006, the levy was calculated as 1.2% of the difference between the total revenues from telecommunications services and revenues generated by interconnection and traffic transmission services. Starting in 2007, the levy is charged as 1.2% of gross revenues from telecommunications services excluding VAT.

In addition, an amendment to the Federal Law on Communications, which became effective July 1, 2006, implemented the Calling Party Pays, or CPP, principle prohibiting mobile operators from charging their subscribers for incoming calls. Prior to the implementation of the CPP, subscribers of fixed line operators could initiate calls to mobile phone users free of charge. Under the new system, fixed line operators began charging their subscribers for such calls and transfer a percentage of the charge to mobile operators terminating such calls. The percentage transferred to mobile operators is regulated by Rossvyazokhrankultura and is known as the settlement rate. The settlement rate, however, does not cover our expenses for terminating calls initiated by subscribers of fixed line operators and, therefore, we partially offset the resulting losses by charging most of our subscribers an additional amount for the first minute of outgoing calls. If the increase in revenues resulting from this additional charge, as well as any increases in our traffic volume associated with the CPP, is not sufficient to offset any losses we incur due to the low settlement rate established by Rossvyazokhrankultura, then the CPP principle may have a negative impact on our average monthly service revenues per subscriber and margins. In addition, potential regulatory changes that may be enacted in the future, such as mobile numbering portability and the introduction of new rules surrounding the mobile virtual network of operators could weaken our competitive position in the mobile telecommunications market and, as a result, materially adversely affect our financial position and results of operations.

The new Ukrainian Law on Telecommunications also came into force on January 1, 2004. However, regulations implementing the new law have not yet been promulgated and certain regulatory bodies established by the new law have not yet commenced their regulatory functions. For example, the regulatory body tasked with regulating the telecommunications industry and issuing telecommunications licenses in Ukraine, the NCRC was formed in January 2005 and, in June 2005, began to perform its regulatory functions. However, the appointment of the NCRC members is currently being challenged in the Ukrainian courts. Although the first two court rulings confirmed the validity of the members’ appointment, a hearing before the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine is still pending. If the Higher Administrative Court invalidates the appointment of the NCRC members, uncertainty will ensue with respect to the NCRC and its role in the regulation of the Ukrainian telecommunications industry. As a result, our financial position and results of operations may be adversely affected.

In addition, the new Ukrainian Law on Telecommunications, among other things, may require companies with a dominant position in the telecommunications market to develop public telecommunications services if directed to do so by the regulatory authorities. As UMC’s estimated market

30

share in mobile telecommunications services in Ukraine is 41%, implementation of the new law may materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. See “Item 4. Information on Our Company—B. Business Overview—Regulation in Ukraine—Legislation.”

The lack of a developed share registration system in Russia may result in improper record ownership of our shares, including the shares underlying the ADSs.

Ownership of Russian joint stock company shares (or, if the shares are held through a nominee or custodian, then the holding of such nominee or custodian) is determined by entries in a share register and is evidenced by extracts from that register. Currently, there is no central registration system in Russia. Share registers are maintained by the companies themselves or, if a company has more than 50 shareholders or so elects, by licensed registrars. Regulations have been issued regarding the licensing conditions for such registrars, as well as the procedures to be followed by both companies maintaining their own registers and licensed registrars when performing the functions of registrar. In practice, however, these regulations have not been strictly enforced, and registrars generally have relatively low levels of capitalization and inadequate insurance coverage. Moreover, registrars are not necessarily subject to effective governmental supervision. Due to the lack of a developed share registration system in Russia, transactions in respect of a company’s shares could be improperly or inaccurately recorded, and share registration could be lost through fraud, negligence, official and unofficial governmental actions or oversight by registrars incapable of compensating shareholders for their misconduct. This creates risks of loss not normally associated with investments in other securities markets. Further, the depositary, under the terms of the deposit agreement, will not be liable for the unavailability of shares or for the failure to make any distribution of cash or property with respect thereto due to the unavailability of the shares.

Characteristics of and changes in the Russian tax system could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Generally, taxes payable by Russian companies are substantial and numerous. These taxes include, among others:

·       income taxes;

·       VAT;

·       unified social tax; and

·       property tax.

The tax environment in Russia historically has been complicated by the fact that various authorities have often issued contradictory tax legislation. This uncertainty potentially exposes us to significant fines and penalties and enforcement measures despite our best efforts at compliance, and could result in a greater than expected tax burden and the suspension or termination of our licenses.

Recently, there have been significant changes to the Russian taxation system. Global tax reforms commenced in 1999 with the introduction of Part One of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, or the Tax Code, which sets general taxation guidelines. Since then, Russia has been in the process of replacing legislation regulating the application of major taxes such as corporate income tax, VAT and property tax with new chapters of the Tax Code.

In practice, the Russian tax authorities generally interpret the tax laws in ways that rarely favor taxpayers, who often have to resort to court proceedings to defend their position against the tax authorities. Recent events within the Russian Federation suggest that the tax authorities may be taking a more assertive position in their interpretations of the legislation and assessments. Differing interpretations of tax regulations exist both among and within government ministries and organizations at the federal,

31

regional and local levels, creating uncertainties and inconsistent enforcement. Tax declarations, together with related documentation such as customs declarations, are subject to review and investigation by a number of authorities, each of which may impose fines, penalties and interest charges. Generally, in an audit, taxpayers are subject to inspection with respect to the three calendar years which immediately preceded the year in which the audit is carried out. Previous audits do not completely exclude subsequent claims relating to the audited period because Russian tax law authorizes upper-level tax inspectorates to review the results of previous tax audits conducted by subordinate tax inspectorates. In addition, on July 14, 2005, the Russian Constitutional Court issued a decision that allows the statute of limitations for tax liabilities to be extended beyond the three-year term set forth in the tax laws if a court determines that a taxpayer has obstructed or hindered a tax audit. Because none of the relevant terms is defined, tax authorities may have broad discretion to argue that a taxpayer has “obstructed” or “hindered” an audit and ultimately seek penalties beyond the three-year term. In some instances, new tax regulations have been given retroactive effect.

Moreover, financial results of Russian companies cannot be consolidated for tax purposes. Therefore, each of our Russian subsidiaries pays its own Russian taxes and may not offset its profit or loss against the loss or profit of any of our other subsidiaries. In addition, intercompany dividends are subject to a withholding tax of 9%, if being distributed to Russian companies, and 15%, if being distributed to foreign companies. If the receiving company itself pays a dividend, it may offset tax withheld against its own withholding liability of the onward dividend although not against any withholding made on a distribution to a foreign company. These tax requirements impose additional burdens and costs on our operations, including management resources.

The foregoing conditions create tax risks in Russia that are more significant than typically found in countries with more developed tax systems, imposing additional burdens and costs on our operations, including management resources. In addition to our substantial tax burden, these risks and uncertainties complicate our tax planning and related business decisions, potentially exposing us to significant fines and penalties and enforcement measures despite our best efforts at compliance, and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and the value of our shares and ADSs.

The implications of the tax system in Ukraine are uncertain and various tax laws are subject to different interpretations.

Ukraine currently has a number of laws related to various taxes imposed by both central and regional governmental authorities. Applicable taxes include VAT, corporate income tax (profits tax), customs duties, payroll (social) taxes and other taxes. These tax laws have not been in force for significant periods of time compared to more developed market economies and are constantly changed and amended. Accordingly, few precedents regarding tax issues are available.

Although the Ukrainian Constitution prohibits retroactive enforcement of any newly enacted tax laws and the Law on Taxation System specifically requires legislation to adopt new tax laws at least six months prior to them becoming effective, such rules have largely been ignored. In addition, tax laws are often vaguely drafted, making it difficult for us to determine what actions are required for compliance. Differing opinions regarding the legal interpretation of tax laws often exist both among and within governmental ministries and organizations, including the tax administration, creating uncertainties and areas of conflict for taxpayers and investors. In practice, the Ukrainian tax authorities tend to interpret the tax laws in an arbitrary way that rarely favors taxpayers.

32

Tax declarations/returns, together with other legal compliance areas (e.g., customs and currency control matters), may be subject to review and investigation by various administrative divisions of the tax authorities, which are authorized by law to impose severe fines, penalties and interest charges. These circumstances create tax risks in Ukraine substantially more significant than typically found in countries with more developed tax systems. Generally, tax declarations/returns in Ukraine remain open and subject to inspection for a three-year period. However, this term may not be observed or may be extended under certain circumstances, including in the context of a criminal investigation. While we believe that we are currently in compliance with the tax laws affecting our operations in Ukraine, it is possible that relevant authorities may take differing positions with regard to interpretative issues, which may result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Vaguely drafted Russian transfer pricing rules and lack of reliable pricing information may impact our business and results of operations.

Russian transfer pricing rules effective since 1999 give Russian tax authorities the right to control prices for transactions between related entities and certain other types of transactions between independent parties, such as foreign trade transactions or transactions with significant price fluctuations. The Russian transfer pricing rules are vaguely drafted, and are subject to interpretation by Russian tax authorities and courts, and have been used for politically motivated investigations and prosecutions. Although we believe that we comply with Russian tax law on transfer pricing, the uncertainties in interpretation of transfer pricing legislation may result in the tax authorities challenging our prices and making adjustments which could affect our tax position. If such price adjustments become effective by a court order or otherwise, our results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In addition, we could face significant losses associated with the assessed amount of underpaid prior tax and related interest and penalties.

In addition, a number of draft amendments to the transfer pricing law have recently been introduced which, if implemented, would considerably toughen the existing law. The proposed changes would, among other things, shift the burden of proving market prices from the tax authorities to the taxpayer, cancel the existing permitted deviation threshold and introduce specific documentation requirements for proving market prices.

The regulatory environment for telecommunications in Russia and Ukraine is uncertain and subject to political influence or manipulation, which may result in negative and arbitrary regulatory and other decisions against us on the basis of other than legal considerations and in preferential treatment for our competitors.

We operate in an uncertain regulatory environment. The legal framework with respect to the provision of telecommunications services in Russia and Ukraine and the other countries where we operate or may operate in the future is not well developed, and a number of conflicting laws, decrees and regulations apply to the telecommunications sector.

Moreover, regulation is conducted largely through the issuance of licenses and instructions, and governmental officials have a high degree of discretion. In this environment, political influence or manipulation could be used to affect regulatory, tax and other decisions against us on the basis of other than legal considerations. For example, Russian government authorities investigated Vimpelcom in late 2003 on grounds that it was illegally operating in Moscow pursuant to a license issued to its wholly-owned subsidiary rather than to Vimpelcom itself. In addition, some of our competitors may receive preferential treatment from the government, potentially giving them a substantial advantage over us. For example, according to press reports, MegaFon and Kyivstar, our competitors in Russia and Ukraine, respectively, received preferential treatment in regulatory matters in the past.

33

Risks Relating to the Shares and ADSs and the Trading Market

Because the depositary may be considered the owner of the shares underlying the ADSs, these shares may be arrested or seized in legal proceedings in Russia against the depositary.

Many jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, recognize a distinction between legal owners of securities, such as the depositary, and the beneficial owners of securities, such as the ADS holders. In these jurisdictions, the shares held by the depositary on behalf of the ADS holders would not be subject to seizure in connection with legal proceedings against the depositary that are unconnected with the shares.

Russian law may not, however, recognize a distinction between legal and beneficial ownership of securities. Russian law generally treats a depositary as the owner of shares underlying the ADSs and, accordingly, may not recognize ADS holders' beneficial ownership therein.

Thus, in proceedings brought against a depositary, whether or not related to shares underlying the ADSs, Russian courts may treat those underlying shares as the assets of the depositary, open to seizure or arrest. In the past, a lawsuit was filed against a depositary other than the depositary seeking the seizure of various Russian companies' shares represented by ADSs issued by that depositary. In the event that this type of suit were to be successful in the future against the depositary, and the shares underlying our ADSs were to be seized or arrested, the ADS holders involved would lose their rights to such underlying shares and all of the money invested in them.

Voting rights with respect to the shares represented by our ADSs are limited by the terms of the deposit agreement for our ADSs and relevant requirements of Russian law.

ADS holders will have no direct voting rights with respect to the shares represented by the ADSs. They will be able to exercise voting rights with respect to the shares represented by ADSs only in accordance with the provisions of the deposit agreement relating to the ADSs and relevant requirements of Russian law. Therefore, there are practical limitations upon the ability of ADS holders to exercise their voting rights due to the additional procedural steps involved in communicating with them. For example, the Joint Stock Companies Law and our charter require us to notify shareholders no less than 30 days prior to the date of any meeting and at least 70 days prior to the date of an extraordinary meeting to elect our Board of Directors. Our ordinary shareholders will receive notice directly from us and will be able to exercise their voting rights by either attending the meeting in person or voting by power of attorney.

ADS holders by comparison, will not receive notice directly from us. Rather, in accordance with the deposit agreement, we will provide the notice to the depositary. The depositary has undertaken, in turn, as soon as practicable thereafter, to mail to you the notice of such meeting, voting instruction forms and a statement as to the manner in which instructions may be given by ADS holders. To exercise their voting rights, ADS holders must then instruct the depositary how to vote the shares represented by the ADSs they hold. Because of this additional procedural step involving the depositary, the process for exercising voting rights may take longer for ADS holders than for holders of the shares and we cannot assure ADS holders that they will receive voting materials in time to enable them to return voting instructions to the depositary in a timely manner. ADSs for which the depositary does not receive timely voting instructions will not be voted.

In addition, although Russian securities regulations expressly permit the depositary to split the votes with respect to the shares underlying the ADSs in accordance with instructions from ADS holders, there is little court or regulatory guidance on the application of such regulations, and the depositary may choose to refrain from voting at all unless it receives instructions from all ADS holders to vote the shares in the same manner. ADS holders may thus have significant difficulty in exercising voting rights with respect to the shares underlying the ADSs. We cannot assure you that holders and beneficial owners of ADSs will (i) receive notice of shareholder meetings to enable the timely return of voting instructions to the

34

depositary, (ii) receive notice to enable the timely cancellation of ADSs in respect of shareholder actions or (iii) be given the benefit of dissenting or minority shareholders’ rights in respect of an event or action in which the holder or beneficial owner has voted against, abstained from voting or not given voting instructions.

ADS holders may be unable to repatriate distributions made on the shares and ADSs.

We anticipate that any dividends we may pay in the future on the shares represented by the ADSs will be declared and paid to the depositary in rubles and will be converted into U.S. dollars by the depositary and distributed to holders of ADSs, net of the depositary’s fees and expenses. The ability to convert rubles into U.S. dollars is subject to the availability of U.S. dollars in Russia’s currency markets. Although there is an existing, albeit limited by size, market within Russia for the conversion of rubles into U.S. dollars, including the interbank currency exchange and over-the-counter and currency futures markets, the further development of this market is uncertain. At present, there is a limited market for the conversion of rubles into foreign currencies outside of Russia and limited market in which to hedge ruble and ruble-denominated investments.

ADS holders may be unable to benefit from the United States-Russia income tax treaty.

Under Russian law, dividends paid to a non-resident holder of the shares generally will be subject to Russian withholding tax at a rate of 15% for legal entities and organizations and at a rate of 30% for individuals. The domestic tax rate applicable to dividends payable by Russian companies to non-resident individuals will be reduced from 30% to 15% effective from January 1, 2008. This tax may be reduced to 5% or 10% for legal entities and organizations and to 10% for individuals under the Convention between the United States of America and the Russian Federation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and Capital (the “United States-Russia income tax treaty”) for U.S. tax residents. However, the Russian tax rules applicable to ADS holders are characterized by significant uncertainties. In 2005 and 2006, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation expressed an opinion that ADS holders (rather than the depositary) should be treated as the beneficial owners of the underlying shares for the purposes of double tax treaty provisions applicable to taxation of dividend income from the underlying shares, provided that the tax residencies of the ADS holders are duly confirmed. However, in the absence of any specific provisions in the Russian tax legislation with respect to the concept of beneficial ownership and taxation of income of beneficial owners, it is unclear how the Russian tax authorities and courts will ultimately treat the ADS holders in this regard. Thus, we may be obliged to withhold tax at standard rates when paying out dividends, and U.S. ADS holders may be unable to benefit from the United States-Russia income tax treaty. See “Item 10. Additional Information—E. Taxation—Russian Income and Withholding Tax Consequences” for additional information.

Capital gain from the sale of shares and ADSs may be subject to Russian income tax.

Under Russian tax legislation, gains realized by non-resident legal entities or organizations from the disposition of Russian shares and securities, as well as financial instruments derived from such shares, such as the ADSs, may be subject to Russian income tax or withholding income tax if immovable property located in Russia constitutes more than 50% of our assets. However, no procedural mechanism currently exists to withhold and remit this tax with respect to sales made to persons other than Russian companies and foreign companies with a registered permanent establishment in Russia. Gains arising from the disposition of the foregoing types of securities on foreign stock exchanges by non-resident holders who are legal entities or organizations are not subject to taxation in Russia.

The taxation of income of non-resident individuals depends on whether this income is received from Russian or non-Russian sources. The Russian tax laws do not give a clear indication as to how the sale of

35

ADSs should be sourced, other than that income from the sale of securities “in Russia” should be considered as Russian source income. As there is no further definition of what should be considered to be a sale “in Russia,” the Russian tax authorities have a certain amount of freedom to conclude what transactions take place in or outside Russia, including looking at the place of the transaction, the place of the issuer of the shares or other similar criteria.

Non-residents who are individuals are taxable on Russian-source income. Provided that gains arising from the disposition of the foregoing types of securities and derivatives outside of Russia by U.S. holders who are individuals not resident in Russia for tax purposes will not be considered Russian source income, then such income should not be taxable in Russia. However, gains arising from the disposition of the same securities and derivatives in Russia by U.S. holders who are individuals not resident in Russia for tax purposes may be subject to tax either at the source in Russia or based on an annual tax return, which they may be required to submit with the Russian tax authorities.

Foreign judgments may not be enforceable against us.

Our presence outside the United States may limit your legal recourse against us. We are incorporated under the laws of the Russian Federation. Substantially all of our directors and executive officers named in this document reside outside the United States. All or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of our officers and directors are located outside the United States. As a result, you may not be able to effect service of process within the United States on us or on our officers and directors. Similarly, you may not be able to obtain or enforce U.S. court judgments against us, our officers and directors, including actions based on the civil liability provisions of the U.S. securities laws. In addition, it may be difficult for you to enforce, in original actions brought in courts in jurisdictions outside the United States, liabilities predicated upon U.S. securities laws.

There is no treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation providing for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in civil and commercial matters. These limitations may deprive you of effective legal recourse for claims related to your investment in the ADSs. The deposit agreement provides for actions brought by any party thereto against us to be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, provided that any action under the U.S. federal securities laws or the rules or regulations promulgated thereunder may, but need not, be submitted to arbitration. The Russian Federation is a party to the United Nations (New York) Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, but it may be difficult to enforce arbitral awards in the Russian Federation due to a number of factors, including the inexperience of Russian courts in international commercial transactions, official and unofficial political resistance to enforcement of awards against Russian companies in favor of foreign investors and Russian courts’ inability to enforce such orders and corruption.

Other Risks

We have not independently verified information we have sourced from third parties.

We have sourced certain information contained in this document from third parties, including private companies and Russian government agencies, and we have relied on the accuracy of this information without independent verification. The official data published by Russian federal, regional and local governments may be substantially less complete or researched than those of more developed countries. Official statistics may also be produced on different bases than those used in Western countries. Any discussion of matters relating to Russia in this document must, therefore, be subject to uncertainty due to concerns about the completeness or reliability of available official and public information. In addition, the veracity of some official data released by the Russian government may be questionable. In 1998, the

36

Director of the Russian State Committee on Statistics and a number of his subordinates were arrested and subsequently sentenced by a court in 2004 in connection with their misuse of economic data.

Because no standard definition of a subscriber, average monthly service revenue per subscriber (ARPU), average monthly usage per subscriber (MOU) or churn exists in the mobile telecommunications industry, comparisons between certain operating data of different companies may be difficult to draw.

The methodology for calculating subscriber numbers, ARPU, MOU and churn varies substantially in the mobile telecommunications industry, resulting in variances in reported numbers from that which would result from the use of a uniform methodology. Therefore, comparisons of certain operating data between different mobile cellular communications companies may be difficult to draw.

Item 4.                        Information on Our Company

A.                History and Development

Mobile TeleSystems CJSC, or MTS CJSC, our predecessor, was formed in 1993. The founding shareholders included MGTS and three other Russian telecommunications companies, which collectively held 53% of our original share capital, and two German companies, Siemens AG and T-Mobile Deutschland GmbH, an affiliate of Deutsche Telekom AG, which collectively held the remaining 47%. JSFC Sistema, or Sistema, currently owns 53.1% of our share capital. See “Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—A. Major Shareholders.”

MTS CJSC inaugurated service in the Moscow license area in 1994 and began expanding into nearby regions in 1997. Since that time, we have continued to grow by applying for GSM licenses in new regions, investing in new GSM licensees, increasing our ownership percentage in these licensees and acquiring existing GSM license holders and operators.

Mobile TeleSystems OJSC was created on March 1, 2000, through the merger of MTS CJSC and RTC CJSC, a wholly-owned subsidiary. In accordance with Russian merger law, MTS CJSC and RTC CJSC ceased to exist and MTS OJSC was created with the assets and obligations of the predecessor companies. Our charter was registered with the State Registration Chamber on March 1, 2000, which is our date of incorporation, and with the Moscow Registration Chamber on March 22, 2000. Our initial share issuance was registered by the Russian Federal Commission on the Securities Market on April 28, 2000.

We completed our initial public offering on July 6, 2000, and listed our shares of common stock, represented by American Depositary Shares, or ADSs, on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “MBT.” Each ADS represents five underlying shares of our common stock. Prior to January 1, 2005, each ADS represented 20 shares.

In April 2003 and December 2004, T-Mobile completed offerings of approximately 5.0% and 15.1% of our shares, respectively, in the form of GDRs through an unsponsored GDR program. In September 2005, T-Mobile sold its remaining 10.1% interest in us on the open market.

Our legal name is Mobile TeleSystems OJSC, and we are incorporated under the laws of the Russian Federation. Our head office is located at 4 Marksistskaya Street, Moscow 109147, Russian Federation, and the telephone number of our investor relations department is +7 495 911-6553. We maintain a website at www1.mtsgsm.com. The information on our website is not a part of this report. We have appointed Puglisi & Associates, 850 Library Avenue, Suite 204, Newark, Delaware 19715 as our authorized agent for service of process for any suit or proceeding arising out of or relating to our shares, ADSs or the Deposit Agreement.

37

Article 2.1 of our charter provides that our principal purpose is to obtain profits through the planning, marketing and operation of a radiotelephone mobile cellular network in the Russian Federation. We are recorded in the Unified State Register of Legal entities with registration number 1027700149124.

Expansion

Russia

In furtherance of our goal to be a nationwide operator in Russia, we have extended our focus beyond our original market of Moscow and the Moscow region with a view towards developing our existing license areas in the regions, acquiring new regional licenses and acquiring regional operators. For a listing of our acquisitions in the last three years, see “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Acquisitions” and Note 3 to our audited consolidated financial statements.

We spent $1,077.8 million in 2006 for network development in Russia, including $853.1 million in cash expenditures on property, plant and equipment, and $224.7 million for the purchase of intangible assets. In addition, we expect to spend approximately $971.0 million in 2007 for further network development.

Belarus

In September 2001, we won a tender held by the Telecommunications Ministry of the Belarus Republic to form a joint venture with a GSM 900/1800 license to operate in Belarus. Pursuant to the tender conditions:

·       we formed a company in Belarus, MTS Belarus, and contributed approximately $2.5 million in exchange for 49% of the share capital of the company (the other 51% of which is held by a state-owned enterprise);

·       we paid a lump sum of $10 million to the government of Belarus;

·       MTS Belarus made a one-time payment of $5 million (which was funded by a $5 million loan from us to it); and

·       we will pay a total of $6 million to the government of Belarus in five annual installments of $1.2 million from 2003 through 2007.

On June 26, 2002, MTS Belarus received all of the governmental approvals and licenses required to commence operations in Belarus and it began operations on June 27, 2002. MTS Belarus is an equity investment, and its results are not consolidated in our financial statements.

Under the terms of the tender, MTS Belarus’ license will be valid for ten years, after which it may be prolonged for an additional five-year period as long as the joint venture fulfills the terms of the license. At the time we won the tender, Cellular Digital Network, or Velcom, already held a GSM 900 license to operate in Belarus. Velcom’s license was issued in 1998 and is also valid for ten years and may be renewed for an additional five-year period. Velcom is a joint venture between Beltelecom and Beltechexport, two Belarusian state enterprises, which collectively have a controlling stake in Velcom and several other companies.

Belarus had a population of approximately 9.8 million and a nationwide mobile penetration rate of approximately 61% as of December 31, 2006, according to AC&M-Consulting.

Ukraine

In March 2003, we purchased a 57.7% stake in UMC for $199.0 million. We purchased a 16.33% stake from KPN, a 16.33% stake from Deutsche Telekom, and a 25.0% stake from Ukrtelecom. In June 2003, we purchased an additional 26.0% stake in UMC from Ukrtelecom for $87.6 million pursuant to a call option agreement, which increased our ownership in UMC to 83.7%. We purchased the remaining 16.33% stake

38

in UMC from TDC for $91.7 million in July 2003 pursuant to a put and call option agreement. Prior to our entering into the agreements for the purchase of UMC, UMC did not make payments when due under certain loans from certain of its shareholders. In connection with our agreement to acquire UMC, UMC agreed to restructure, and we guaranteed, such indebtedness. As of December 31, 2004, these loans were fully repaid.

Uzbekistan

In August 2004, we acquired a 74% stake in Uzdunrobita, the largest wireless operator in Uzbekistan, for $126.4 million in cash. We also entered into put and call option agreements with the existing shareholders to acquire the remaining 26% stake for not less than $37.7 million. The exercise period for the call and put option was 48 months from the acquisition date. In August 2006, we signed an amendment to the call and put option agreement, which eliminates the call option and extends the exercise period of the put option to July 2008. The purchase price for the put option will be determined by an international investment bank to be selected jointly by both parties within 10 days of the submission of a put notice.

Turkmenistan

In two separate purchases in June and November 2005, we acquired 100% of BCTI, the leading wireless operator in Turkmenistan, for $46.7 million in cash.

Capital Expenditures

We spent in total $1,722.0 million in 2006 for network development in Russia and other countries, which included $1,450.0 million in cash expenditures on property, plant and equipment, and $272.0 million for the purchase of intangible assets. In addition, we expect to spend approximately $1,785.0 million in 2007 for further network development, which we plan to finance mostly through operating cash flows, and to the extent necessary, through additional external financing activities.

Belarus

MTS Belarus spent $124.4 million in 2006 for network development in Belarus and expects to spend approximately $143.0 million in 2007 for further network development. MTS Belarus has developed GSM 900 and 1800 networks in Belarus’ major cities and regions, including Minsk and the Minsk region, the Gomel region, the Mogilev region, the Grodno region, the Vitebsk region and the Brest region, as well as throughout certain major highways, including the Moscow-Brest highway and train route. MTS Belarus has also developed its network in certain areas near Belarus’ border with Ukraine and Russia, and plans to further extend and improve the technical capabilities of its network throughout Belarus. We do not include the capital expenditures of MTS Belarus in our capital expenditures described above as MTS Belarus’ results are not consolidated in our financial statements.

Ukraine

UMC spent $576.4 million in 2006 for network development in Ukraine, including $531.2 million in cash expenditures on property, plant and equipment, and $45.2 million for the purchase of intangible assets. In addition, UMC expects to spend approximately $705.0 million in 2007 for further network development.

Uzbekistan

Uzdunrobita spent $51.6 million in 2006 for network development in Uzbekistan, including $49.6 million in cash expenditures on property, plant and equipment, and $2.0 million for the purchase of intangible assets. In addition, Uzdunrobita expects to spend approximately $88.0 million in 2007 for further network development.

39

Turkmenistan

BCTI spent $16.3 million in 2006 for network development in Turkmenistan, which consisted of expenditures on property, plant and equipment.  In addition, BCTI expects to spend approximately $21.0 million in 2007 for network development.

B.               Business Overview

We are one of the leading providers of mobile cellular communications services in the Russian Federation, Ukraine and certain other CIS countries, employing technology based primarily on GSM. In 2006, we generated net revenues of $6,384 million and had a subscriber base of 72.8 million (51.2 million in Russia, 20.0 million in Ukraine, 1.4 million in Uzbekistan and 0.2 million in Turkmenistan) at December 31, 2006, making us the largest mobile operator in Russia, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and the second largest in Ukraine in terms of subscribers.

In addition to standard voice services, we offer our subscribers value-added services, including voice mail, short message service, or SMS, general packet radio service, or GPRS, and various SMS- and GPRS-based information and entertainment services (including multi-media message service, or MMS). We also offer our subscribers the ability to roam automatically throughout Europe and in much of the rest of the world, and as of December 31, 2006, we had bilateral roaming agreements with 420 wireless operators in 200 countries.

We have grown rapidly since 1999 through organic growth, as well as acquisitions. The table below sets forth our total subscribers as of the end of, and net revenues for each of, the last five years:

(1)                 We define a subscriber as an individual or organization whose account shows chargeable activity within 61 days (or 183 days in the case of our prepaid brand tariffs) or whose account does not have a negative balance for more than this period. Prior to October 1, 2004, UMC used a 90-day period for such purposes with respect to its “Jeans” and “SIM-SIM” subscribers. The subscriber amounts do not include MTS Belarus’ subscribers.

According to AC&M-Consulting, we had a leading 34% market share of total wireless subscribers in Russia at December 31, 2006.  Our market share in the Moscow license area, which encompasses the City of Moscow and the Moscow region, was higher at 42%. The Moscow license area accounts for approximately 15% of our total subscriber base. In Ukraine, we had a leading 41% market share at December 31, 2006, according to AC&M-Consulting.  Our subscriber base continued to grow in 2007. At May 31, 2007, we had approximately 74.7 million subscribers, of which 52.2 million were in Russia, 20.4 million were in Ukraine, 1.9 million were in Uzbekistan and 0.2 million in Turkmenistan.

Russia is our principal market, both in terms of subscribers and revenues. At December 31, 2006, approximately 70% of our subscriber base was in Russia and approximately 27% was in Ukraine. For the year ended December 31, 2006, approximately 73% of our revenues came from operations in Russia and 23% from operations in Ukraine.

Overall wireless penetration in Russia was at approximately 105% at December 31, 2006, and higher in Moscow at 156%, according to AC&M-Consulting. Mobile cellular penetration in Ukraine was almost the same as in Russia at approximately 104% at December 31, 2006, according to AC&M-Consulting. Mobile cellular penetration in Uzbekistan was at approximately 9% at December 31, 2006, according to

40

our estimates. Mobile cellular penetration in Turkmenistan was at approximately 3% at December 31, 2006, according to our estimates.

As of December 31, 2006, we had licenses to operate in 85 regions of Russia with a population of approximately 145.2 million people, or approximately 98% of the country’s total population, for the entire territory of Ukraine with a population of approximately 47.5 million people, for the entire territory of Uzbekistan with a population of approximately 26.8 million people and for the entire territory of Turkmenistan with a population of approximately 6.9 million people. As of December 31, 2006, we had commercial operations in 84 regions of Russia.

To maintain and increase our market share and brand awareness, we use a combination of print media, radio, television, direct mail and outdoor advertising, focusing on brand and image advertising, as well as promotion of particular tariff plans. Supporting these efforts, we have developed an extensive distribution network comprised of 498 of our own sales and customer service centers and approximately 41,000 additional points of sale operated by our dealers, as of December 31, 2006.

We seek to minimize our exposure to the credit risk of our subscribers through our advance-payment billing system, which is used by over 90% of our subscribers in Russia and approximately 93% of our subscribers in Ukraine. Under this system, our subscribers prepay for their access, usage and value-added services fees.

MTS Belarus had 3.2 million subscribers and a leading market share of 53.8% at December 31, 2006, according to AC&M-Consulting. The subscriber base of MTS Belarus grew to 3.4 million at March 31, 2007. Belarus, a country with a population of approximately 9.8 million, had a mobile cellular penetration rate of 61% at December 31, 2006, according to AC&M-Consulting.

Business Strategy

Our primary goal is to maintain our position as a leading wireless operator in each of the territories in which we operate. In addition, we intend to take advantage of opportunities to expand our network coverage in the Russian Federation and other countries with a focus on the former Soviet Republics, excluding the Baltic states. In June 2006, our Board of Directors adopted a new development strategy called “3+1” with three key principles as follows:

·       Strengthening our leadership position in Russia.

·       Seizing growth opportunities and synergies in the CIS.

·       Creating value in certain growth markets.

In addition to pursuing these three principles, we intend to explore opportunities for innovation, vertical integration and convergence which correspond to the “+1” component of our newly adopted “3+1” strategy.

To achieve these goals, we plan to continue to implement the following strategies:

·       Develop our operations in the regions we currently service by focusing on increasing revenues in these markets.

·       Provide new and varied tariff plans and value-added services, that appeal to our various subscriber groups with the aim of having better brand perception and customer loyalty than our competitors.

·       Expand our operations and further develop our commercial services in Ukraine, Belarus and other countries of the CIS as attractive opportunities arise through the acquisition of existing operators or new licenses.

·       Enhance innovation and technology, especially in the more developed markets of Russia and Ukraine.

41

·       Leverage scale and synergies within the CIS.

·       Become more cost efficient in the countries where we operate.

·       Become a leader with respect to the quality of our management, employees and company culture.

·       Identify attractive acquisition opportunities in emerging markets based on selective criteria.

·       Explore opportunities for horizontal and vertical integration and convergence.

In the past few years, we have rapidly expanded into the Russian regions and selected CIS countries through launches of operations in territories in which we had licenses and through acquisitions of other mobile operators. Starting in 2003, we have become particularly focused on the integration of our existing businesses into a single company with a unified marketing approach and centralized network and operations management. In addition, we intend to continue to consolidate our ownership in regional subsidiaries by acquiring remaining minority stakes. In 2006, we reorganized our corporate and management structure into a single corporate center and three business units, each of which is responsible for our operations in Russia, Ukraine and other foreign subsidiaries, respectively. The aim of the restructuring was to increase our efficiency and business focus through greater transparency and a clearer division of responsibilities between the corporate center and business units.

Our capital expenditures (consisting of purchases of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets) in 2005 and 2006 were $2,181.3 million and $1,722.0 million, respectively, and we expect to invest approximately $1,785.0 million in 2007. These investments are required to support the growth in our subscriber base (i.e., to improve network capacity) and to develop our network in the new regions for which we received licenses.

We may also expand our operations into other countries of the CIS through the acquisition of existing operators or new licenses as attractive opportunities arise.

Implementation of these strategies is subject to a number of risks. See “Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors” for a description of these and other risks we face.

Current Operations

Subsidiaries

For a list of our major subsidiaries and our ownership percentages in these subsidiaries, see Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements.

Consistent with our strategy, in November 2004, the general meeting of our shareholders approved a reorganization of MTS OJSC in the form of a merger with Telecom XXI, Kuban-GSM, UDN-900, Dontelecom, MTS Barnaul, MTS-NN, Amur Cellular Communication (“ACC”) and Telecom-900. We completed the merger in July 2005.

To improve management efficiency and consolidate administratively our majority-owned subsidiaries, our shareholders approved in February 2006 a further reorganization of MTS OJSC in the form of a merger with nine of our wholly-owned subsidiaries, including Gorizont RT, TAIF Telcom, MTS RTK, Sibchallenge, Tomsk Cellular Communications (“TSS”), BM Telekom, Far East Cellular Systems-900 (“FECS-900”), Siberian Cellular Systems-900 (“SCS-900”) and Uraltel. We completed the merger in March 2006. On April 1, 2007, the Russian authorities approved the merger of both ReCom and Telesot Alania into MTS OJSC.

42

License Areas

The following table shows, as of May 31, 2007, information with respect to the license areas in which we and our subsidiaries and affiliates provide or expect to provide GSM services:

43