As my colleague, I also do not believe that there is any substance to the said argument.
Indeed, as my colleague pointed out, the judge D. Mintz, even though they are Section 10(a)(8) to the Licensing Law and Article 45 This law deals with non-renewal of a license due to competition considerations, Section 10(a)(8) Refers to the Competition Law, while Section 45 Refers to the Law for the Promotion of Competition and the Reduction of Concentration, 5774-2013 (hereinafter: The Concentration Law). To be precise, this is not a purely technical or semantic difference, but rather a difference that reflects a substantial difference between the two grounds for non-renewal set forth in the aforementioned sections: the cause of action in section 10(a)(8) Refers to the improper conduct of the license holder who violated a provision of the Competition Law. On the other hand, the cause of action in section 45 grants the Director the authority not to renew a license – not because of a defect in the conduct of the license holder, but for reasons of promoting industry competition when allocating rights on behalf of the State (and see in this context paragraphs 4-5 of the opinion of my colleague, the Vice-President). v. Solberg, and the references cited therein; And: Ariel Ezrahi and David Discover European Competition Law in the Mirror Israeli Antitrust Law 86 (2019)). Therefore, I do not believe that we should learn from the legislature's choice to recognize the ground for non-renewal for reasons of competition In section 10(a)(8), an intention to deny recognition of an independent cause of action In section 45 of this law. These are different tracks and separate grounds for non-renewal of a license, each of which is based on separate purposes.
At the same time, in my opinion, even though we are dealing with two separate grounds, which are based on different purposes, it should not be inferred from this that nothing can be learned from the existence of Section 10(A)(8) of the Licensing Law regarding the discretion of the Director when he comes to make use of his authority under the Section 45 This law includes: Section 10(A)(8) The Licensing Law makes the non-renewal of the license conditional on defined and severe violations of the Competition Law – a restrictive arrangement, a monopoly that has abused its position in the market, or the imposition of a financial sanction. These violations attribute to the license holder improper, defined and proven, which was determined as such by the Competition Commissioner by virtue of the powers granted to him by law. It should be noted in this context that the Director-General's determination, whether in the matter of a restrictive arrangement according to Section 43(A)(1) to the Competition Law or to the matter of the abuse of a monopolistic status according to Section 43(A)(5) The law is considered a serious determination and has very significant evidentiary weight. Thus, determinations by the Competition Commissioner, as stated above, expose the license holder to criminal, administrative and tort sanctions, and serve as prima facie evidence in any legal proceeding (see, in this regard: Civil Appeal 7125/20 Success for the Promotion of a Fair Society v. UBS AG, paragraphs 96-99 of the judge's judgment Khirbat Kabub (2.1.2025); Civil Appeal 8387/20 Ashdod Port Company in Appeal Taxes v. Commissioner of Competition, paragraphs 68-70 of the judge's judgment A. Grosskopf (8.1.2024)).