"We do not accept the company's claim that it did everything in its power to provide the service as required of it in the service file. In addition, the Ministry has evidence, as stated above, that the company continued to make attempts to retain subscribers who wished to switch to customers of the service providers, although not in the same way as in the past... " (my emphases – R.R.).
- The Ministry of Communications' position that Bezeq took the law into its own hands while violating the provisions that apply to it also arises from the Ministry of Communications' response to the administrative petition filed by Bezeq. In its response, the Ministry of Communications claimed, inter alia, that:
"The petitioner [Bezeq], which for many years has enjoyed a monopolistic status in the directive communications market, opposed the move from the beginning and throughout all its stages. Despite the representation that the Petitioner is trying to create in the petition, according to which she cooperated with the entire process, this is not accurate at all" (see Appendix 37 to the application, in paragraph 4, my emphases – R.R.).
The Ministry of Communications also noted in this response –
"In the early days of the reform – during a period that is very critical to its success, in the fulfillment of the obligations imposed on it by the respondent [the Ministry of Communications], the Petitioner [Bezeq] took the law into its own hands and committed a large number of serious violations that could have thwarted the entire reform" (ibid., in paragraph 6, my emphases – R.R.).
And later on –
"[Bezeq's] intention was to implement the wholesale market reform, in accordance with the rules it had planned for itself in advance, and as it saw fit only, while ignoring the Respondent's decisions and the round-table discussions" (ibid., at paragraph 51, the premise is mine, R.R.).
- All these references attest to the clear position of the Ministry of Communications, according to which Bezeq took the law into its own hands, tried to consciously and deliberately thwart the reform, did not cooperate with its implementation, but acted only as it saw fit, while ignoring the Ministry's decisions.
In summary of this point, I am of the opinion that all of the above, and especially the cumulative force of the matter, is sufficient to justify the conclusion that the applicant met the low burden imposed on him at this stage of the hearing. The Applicant laid a preliminary evidentiary basis for the fact that Bezeq's officers had indeed outlined a deliberate policy of violating the Regulator's directives.