In light of this, the defendant will inform - what it has not announced so far - whether it is complying with the non-competition period set out in clause 5.2 of the agreement - and if so, it must continue to pay the plaintiffs their wages throughout the period of non-competition.
The plaintiffs' additional arguments regarding the violation of their moral right as well as regarding their libel -
- I will begin with the plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled to payment for the continued publication of the program "Zahavi is Nervous", even though in practice Zahavi did not continue to broadcast. As to this argument, there is no dispute that the program did indeed appear on the station's list of programs (although not on the broadcast schedule). However, in my approach, since it was determined that in any case the defendant was obligated to pay the plaintiffs for the period in which they were suspended and that the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant was not cancelled during this period, this determination indicates that in any case the defendant was entitled to continue to publish the plan.
The plaintiffs further claim that they are entitled to compensation for the violation of their moral right, since the defendant published that the program would be broadcast with Zahavi, while Zahavi did not broadcast the program from the date of its suspension. I do not find this argument acceptable since it has not been proven as it should be. Thus, the plaintiff presented two cases in which the defendant allegedly published his program - in the first case (Appendix 29 to his affidavit( the program was published on the broadcast schedule and in the second case (which also appears in Appendix 29 to the plaintiff's affidavit( and in the second case, on May 22, 2023, the defendant published a segment of a program under the page of the program Zehavi Nervous and a quote was mentioned that was not said by Zehavi - who did not broadcast the program. As for the latter case - in the context of the quote it is explicitly stated that it was said by Erel Segal - i.e., it is clear that it was not attributed to Zahavi. As for the first case, given that this is a one-time case, I do not believe that it entitles the plaintiffs to any compensation.