Hence, it appears that most of the Applicant's arguments in this matter are directed towards the application of the law to the circumstances of the present case. However, as is well known, the additional hearing is not a "further appeal" (Additional Civil Hearing 67314-09-24, at paragraph 13 [Nevo]; Additional Civil Hearing 67560-08-24 Amos Luzon Development and Energy Group in Tax Appeal v. Edeltech Holdings 2006 Ltd., para. 15 [Nevo] (November 26, 2024)), and in the circumstances of the case, I do not believe that there is justification for a new hearing in the manner in which the court applied the relevant laws.
- In the same way, the determination that the respondent will be able to use the frozen embryos for pregnancy through a surrogacy procedure does not establish grounds for further discussion. As detailed above, the judge Barak-Erez In this context, she relied on the factual conclusion that the issue of surrogacy was of secondary importance to the parties, and to the applicant in particular (paragraph 102 of the judge's judgment Barak-Erez). The Judge Barak-Erez She also rejected the Applicant's argument that this determination contradicts the provisions of the agreement, noting that the relevant clause in the agreement "does not reflect a sweeping negation of surrogacy procedures, but only the fact that at that time the plan to insert the embryos into [the respondent's] womb was on the agenda only" (paragraph 104 of her judgment). The judge further referred to Barak-Erez that the Applicant gave his consent to the use of surrogacy at a later date than the signing of the agreement. The Judge Kosher, for his part, refrained from addressing at length the operative level of the judgment (paragraph 17 of his judgment); and the judge Knafi-Steinitz She explicitly stated that she does not rule on the question of surrogacy (paragraph 52 of her judgment). It is therefore clear that the court's conclusions on the matter do not amount to a new rule, and in any event, this argument of the Applicant is a clear appellate argument which does not establish grounds for further hearing.
- The Applicant's Arguments Against the Consultant's Outline and the Attitude Between Him and the Provisions Surrogacy Law, also do not establish grounds for holding an additional hearing. This is for the simple reason that, contrary to what emerges from the application, the court did not adopt the outline in the judgment, so that the operative provisions regarding the manner of use of frozen embryos have not yet been determined.
- In summary, the determinations in the judgment are clearly rooted in the concrete circumstances of the case, and no new rule has been established in them that exceeds the boundaries of the present proceeding. The judges of the panel based their judgment on principles from the existing law, and decided the charged question that was brought before them against the background of the existing reality – in which The legislative and secondary provisions regarding IVF are only partial, and do not include a complete response to all the complexities and aspects of the issue. As mentioned, There is no denying that the outcome of the judgment will have substantial and weighty implications for the applicant, but as has been ruled more than once, "an additional hearing is intended to clarify the difficulty of the Halacha which was ruled, while the difficulty of Conclusion concrete resulting from the judgment [...] is not sufficient in this context."Additional Civil Hearing 2140/23, in paragraph 22 [Nevo] [emphases in the original – 11]; See also: Additional Civil Hearing 1075/15 Bloom v. Anglo-Saxon - Property Agency (Israel - 1992) Ltd., paragraph 18 [Nevo] (8.3.2015)).
- Finally, it is appropriate to close the circle and emphasize once again the factual background that led us to the current deliberation stage. Already about a decade ago, the Respondent expressed to the Applicant her desire to make use of the frozen embryos in order to bring a child into the world. Subsequently, the parties conducted a dispute for more than five years, in three instances, while the proceedings in the Family Court lasted alone for more than three years. Given the nature of the issue and the set of rights at hand, I believe that the time has come to end the lengthy litigation between the parties (see and compare: Additional Civil Hearing 62866-05-25, [Nevo] in paragraph 31 and the references therein; Additional Civil Hearing 2382/17 Anonymous vs. Anonymous, paragraph 25 [Nevo] (3.4.2017)).
Therefore, the application is denied, and in any event, the request for a stay of execution is also denied. In the circumstances of the case, and since no response has been requested, no order for expenses will be made.