The main points of the proceeding and the parties' evidence
- On February 4, 2025, a pre-trial meeting was held, at the end of which I instructed the parties to submit a list of witnesses on their behalf. Following a request filed by the plaintiff to amend the minutes of the hearing, and after the defendant's response was submitted, I ordered the amendment of the minutes of the hearing as detailed in my decision of February 13, 2025.
- The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916When the lists of witnesses were submitted on behalf of the parties and I left the amended list of witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff as detailed in my decision of February 20, 2025, I set the case for hearing oral evidence and summaries.
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
- On November 2, 2025, the evidentiary hearing was held, during which the parties' testimonies were heard, and at the end of it, the parties summarized their arguments orally before me. On behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Ihab Fahoum, who planned and handled the projects on behalf of the plaintiff (p. 1, paras. 41-42), Mr. Roni Levy, director of the planning department of the Nahariya municipality (p. 16, s. 36), and Mr. Fares Daher, the former city engineer of Nahariya (p. 22, s. 10). On behalf of the defendant, Mr. Zurik Szymanovich, who served as the project manager, testified (p. 30, s. 38).
- It should be noted that at the beginning of the evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff's counsel announced that three witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff did not appear, and therefore requested that an additional evidentiary hearing be scheduled. The defendant objected on the grounds that the plaintiff's witnesses were "summoned in a much shorter period of time" than determined in the court's decision. In circumstances in which it became clear that the plaintiff summoned her witnesses only 11 days before the date of the evidentiary hearing, and not as I instructed in my decision of February 20, 2025 ("the parties summoned their witnesses at least 75 days before the date of the hearing and by personal delivery"; paragraph 3 therein), and since the plaintiff did not provide any explanation for this omission, I found no justification for setting an additional hearing date, as stated in my decision given in this matter at the hearing of November 2, 2025 (p. 5, ibid.). It can also be assumed that if the plaintiff believed that she had suffered damage as a result of the non-testimony of these witnesses and that their testimony was important and necessary, then she would have discussed this in the framework of her summaries. I did not see that the plaintiff did so, so in any case this matter should be regarded as neglected by her.
The Gilad Junction Project
- There is no dispute as to the existence of a written contract between the parties regarding this project (Appendix 2 to the claim; the contract bears the date of June 27, 2018 and the signatures appearing on it are from February 2019).
Clauses 2 and 3 of Appendix C of the contract, which deal with the planner's salary and the manner of its payment, provide as follows: