Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 25510-11-24 Cohen Naftali v. Israel Hazemi - part 36

After examining the arguments, I am of the opinion that the defendants were not deprived.  This is because I have found to adopt the position of the court's expert that in the concrete case, in adjusting the coefficient to the circumstances, the coefficient for the rights that embodies the difference in the areas is reasonable.  As regards this, I am of the opinion that the scales are decided by a concrete circumstance that was brought by the expert and even detailed by the plaintiffs in their summaries and did not receive any response from the defendants and is related to the feasibility of the actual realization of the building rights.  Thus, there is no dispute that we are dealing with rights to expand an apartment in a condominium.  Accordingly, in order to realize the building rights, it is not enough to have planning that enables the expansion of the apartments (i.e., in an outline plan), but proprietary consent is required for the attachment of the parts of the common property on which the construction is being carried out in order to carry out the actual construction.  The possibility of exercising these rights is governed by the provisions of sections 71a-d of the Real Estate Law.  In accordance with these provisions, in order to realize the building rights by way of attaching common property, the consent of those who own them is required: "three-quarters of the apartments and two-thirds of the common property are adjacent to their apartments." These provisions further state that a person who has carried out an expansion himself is not entitled to object to a similar expansion.  According to the plaintiffs - which was not contradicted by the defendants - among the plaintiffs are the owners of 13 small apartments in the project.  It was argued that these plaintiffs refuse to carry out an expansion by the defendants, and given that the condominium includes a total of 32 apartments - it is clear that the defendants cannot claim that the building rights could have been exercised proprietically in this case.