In these circumstances and for this reason alone, I am of the opinion that the law has been determined by the court's expert that the feasibility of the realization of the building rights is capable of affecting the value of the building rights, and accordingly the provision of consideration in respect of them in accordance with a lower coefficient (as stated in the present case 0.33 as opposed to 0.44) is prima facie reasonable.
- The third reason - whether the economic feasibility of the project has been proven - i.e., whether the project meets the conditions Section 2(a)(1) To the Pinui-Binui Law? According to the defendants, to the extent that it was standardized For them The additional rights as claimed by them, the project will not be economically worthwhile and therefore will not meet the conditions of the section. However, once the defendants' claims are rejected and it is determined that the considerations offered to them are not depriving them and that the defendants are not entitled to additional consideration - the court's expert determination is in place and accordingly in its current format, the project is economical and moreover, its profitability to the developer, as of 2023, was in line with Standard 21.1.
Therefore, this argument of the defendants is also rejected.
- As a summary - since the defendants' claims were rejected, I determine that their refusal to sign the evacuation-construction agreement is unreasonable, and as a result, I approve the transaction.
- In light of my determination, I will turn to examine the remedies requested by the plaintiffs. The first remedy to which the plaintiffs petitioned is to oblige the defendants to enter into the Pinui-Binui transaction. The plaintiffs are entitled to this remedy under the provisions of section 2(a)(2) of the Pinui-Binui Law. Therefore, at the end of the judgment, the defendants will be given a period of 30 days to sign all the required documents, and if they do not do so, the developer's counsel will be appointed to sign the documents in their name and in their place. As detailed above, in addition to this remedy - which is essentially an enforcement remedy - the plaintiffs petitioned in the statement of claim on behalf of a remedy that was defined by them as an alternative monetary remedy , but this remedy was deleted.
Conclusion;
- The claim is accepted.
- Within 30 days from today, the defendants will sign the Pinui-Binui agreement dated January 16,2022, as well as all the documents, affidavits, minutes, lien documents with the financial institution, reports to the tax authorities, notes, of any kind whatsoever, that are necessary and/or required for the realization and execution of the project. If they do not do so by the date as determined, I appoint the owner's attorney - Adv. Elad Wassmanovich and/or any other attorney from his office and/or the developer's attorney, Adv. Iris Ostrovsky Shilo and/or any other attorney from the law firm of Spiegelman, Koren, Zamir & Co., for the purpose of entering into a transaction on behalf of the defendants.
- The defendants will bear the plaintiffs' expenses in a total sum of ILS 40,000. In determining the expenses, I reflected the fact that the defendants did object to the project, but I did not find that these were unfounded reasons, but rather those that raised questions relevant to the discussion. I also expressed the efficient management of the proceeding and while saving time and cost resources. The payment will be made within 30 days from today.
- The Secretariat will communicate the judgment to the parties.
Granted today, October 29,2026, in the absence of the parties.