The hearings in the 4000 case in the Netanyahu trial resumed today (Tuesday), and for the first time, testimony was given by the regulation, after the former director general of the Ministry of Communications, Avi Berger, came to the witness stand.
So far, four people who presented the picture from the Walla website have testified, and their testimony dealt with the "abnormal response" section.
Now, Berger's testimony is supposed to show how the Ministry of Communications facilitated Elovich in the alleged deal between him and former Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Berger explains the reform that was supposed to be in the communications market, where companies competing with Bezeq will be able to ride on its infrastructure in order to reduce prices.
According to him, the damage that will be caused to Bezeq as a result is close to NIS 1 billion and at least several hundred million shekels.
Judge Bar-Am turned to the witness and asked: "Did Bezeq not like it?"
Berger replied: "Bezeq did not like the reform, every Monday and Thursday we received letters. The Ministry of Communications is an administrative body that does processes. A policy was set in 2012, and then a series of hearings, each hearing a goal - that's what they want to do and companies say respond.
It sounds like an open heart and a willing soul. "
Shaul Alovich // Photo: Oren Ben Hakon,
Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh asked the witness during the hearing: "The reform is built on Bezeq's infrastructure, how much did it bother you what will happen to Bezeq as a result of the change in infrastructure? After all, the Ministry of Communications also needs Bezeq to implement the reform."
Berger replied: The reform is built on Bezeq and also on Hot.
It was estimated that Bezeq would be harmed, but that it would continue to make a profit.
The harm to Bezeq was considered and it was decided that it was proportionate enough to the advantage for the communications and civilian market in Israel. "
Another Berger was asked about the company's objections and replied: Dozens of letters a year, requests for meetings, pressures on me, the minister, a general atmosphere of opposition.
The process was to pay Bezeq compensation for the use of its infrastructure.
Bezeq did not cooperate with the process of the reform, turned to the court, to the High Court - it was a complex process and there was no cooperation. "
Prosecutor Tirosh asked the witness: What did you know about policy change, the new minister?
(When Netanyahu held the position of Minister of Communications, while also being Prime Minister) ".
Witness Berger is supposed to present the alleged deal on the part of the regulator with Bezeq // Photo: Yehoshua Yosef,
Berger replied, "In the entire period before my dismissal, they walked around carefully. It was an election period."
Prosecutor Tirosh: What do you have to do with Elovich?
Berger: "I know the name from the communications market, I met him several times at the Ministry of Communications. We first met at the Ministry of Communications a few months ago, I don't remember when."
Prosecutor Tirosh: "What other meetings between you two?"
Berger: There was one meeting with him and Or Elowitz (his son), in Kamir's office, they tried to explain why the wholesale market is difficult for Bezeq, I tried to get cooperation and the meeting ended with nothing.
In another meeting attended by Shaul Elowitz, Berger talks about an implicit threat from Elowitz: "At the meeting, Elowitz tried to persuade me to go down the telephony reform, not to file a lawsuit in the High Court. He tried to say that Bezeq was being harmed.
"He said on a personal level, that Solomon Wax was the CEO of.
"In the past, the media, a brigadier general in the reserve, submitted at some point, according to Elowitz, a false liar," then he had difficulty finding work, and then asked him 5 years later to help find a job. "
Berger added: "I realized it was some kind of implicit threat, I picked up the phone to the firm's legal counsel. She recommended I talk to a director general from the Justice Department, and to Advocate Drisker, who represented us in the High Court.
The three of them said unanimously that this was an implicit threat and that "there is nothing to do, keep doing your job."