The High Holy Days don’t just welcome a new year, but are also a period of judgment. Last year, the State of Israel saw several major court cases grip the attention of the public, but there were also some lesser-known rulings that have had a far-reaching impact for Israelis.
The Jerusalem Post reviewed its archives and spoke to three attorneys about some of the most important judgments and cases from the last year that you should know about.
1. “Deri law”
The High Court of Justice hearing on the “Deri law” “was a preview for what we saw” with the undecided judicial reform “Reasonableness Standard Law” on September 12, said attorney Dr. Tal Rotman, partner at the Pearl Cohen law firm.
Shas chairman Arye Deri had been convicted of corruption and in a plea deal was sentenced to suspended prison sentences and had committed to retiring from public life. In 2022, Basic Law: The Government was amended by the new government to allow Deri to serve as interior and health minister despite his suspended sentence.
Petitions challenged this move, calling on the High Court to strike down the amendment. Ten of the 11 justices supported barring Deri from his ministerial position. Rotman said that the majority opinion argued that it was unreasonable for him to serve as a minister, while conservative justices wanted to focus on his commitment to retire from public service. Supreme Court President Esther Hayut and six other justices declined to rule on the matter of the Basic Law itself, saying that the striking of Israel’s quasi-constitutional laws should only be undertaken in the most extreme circumstances, though conservative judges argued that there was no right to engage in review of Basic Laws.
Rotman said that, in the hearing, Israel saw the elements that would come to a head in September’s hearing. The question of judicial review of Basic Laws was raised, which became a major point of contention and public debate leading up to the reasonableness standard hearing and legislation of reform laws. Momentum began to build against the reasonableness standard itself following the ruling, culminating in the “Reasonableness Standard Law.” Rotman said that the “Deri law” also was part of a trend of Basic Law amendments being used to solve political problems.
Held just a day after the announcement of the judicial reform on February 4, it has been inextricably connected to the legal overhaul – for reformists a bellwether for the need to change the system, as it was one that wouldn’t allow the prime minister to choose his cabinet members.
2. “Reasonableness Standard Law”
The “Reasonableness Standard Law” passed in the Knesset on July 24, the first and only judicial reform law to enter the books since the legal overhaul was announced on January 4.
The reasonableness standard was a common law doctrine that allowed the courts to strike down government administrative decisions deemed far beyond what a reasonable and responsible authority would decide. Critics of the standard argued that it is highly subjective and allows the court to overrule elected authorities to influence policy. The amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary restricted the standard, preventing the courts from applying its application to full government, ministerial, and prime ministerial decisions.
Soon after the amendment (or “law”) was passed, it was met with a barrage of petitions. Petitioners argued that the law was an abuse of the Knesset’s constituent authority because the law went against constitutional norms on rule of law and separation of powers. The procedure of the law was alleged to have been faulty, rushed through the legislative process with a committee law, which circumvents a preliminary reading and 45-day waiting period for private law. Reasonableness was not only an important legal tool for a citizen’s recourse against arbitrary and capricious administrative decisions, contended petitioners, but it also prevented corrupt and political considerations from guiding appointments and actions through a requirement for officials to act reasonably and explain their policies. Petitioners also argued that the law damaged Israeli democracy as part of the broader agenda of judicial reform.
Eight of these petitions were accepted by the court, and on September 12 a historic panel of 15 justices presided over the case. Much of the hearing was devoted to discussion about the authority of the court to strike down Basic Laws. Many justices and petitioners expressed the belief that the court can strike down the laws to prevent integration of antidemocratic or anti-Jewish legislation into the constitutional framework. Conservative justices and respondents said that, with the self-afforded power, the court was overstepping its boundaries to interfere with the Knesset’s power to introduce constitutional articles, and that doing so was undemocratic.
The lack of clarity on judicial review for Basic Laws has created fears of a constitutional crisis, but the court has many other options for how to address the law. While the ruling has been left for the new year, the hearing closed a politically tumultuous year with protests and fierce debate.
3. Neta Mor v. Elad Israel Residence
Neta Mor purchased an apartment in a planned building for over NIS 5.5 million in 2014, but when she visited the building site in 2018 she realized that an accompanying services building would be blocking her apartment’s view. Attorney Hila Goldfeld, partner at Weksler Bregman & Co., explained that the developers knew that they would be blocking the view.
After her lawsuit was rejected by the Tel Aviv District Court in 2021, Mor appealed to the High Court of Justice. The court ruled in January in her favor, said Goldfeld, because it would have been easier for them to know the relevant information and to provide it, to create symmetry in the contract. As a result, the onus will be on developers to reveal more information to clients, changing responsibilities and expectations in the market.
The impact of the case for Israeli home buyers is that “before, it was buyer beware; now they’re saying seller beware,” said Goldfeld.
4. “Incapacitation Law”
The March 23 “Incapacitation Law” altered the procedure for declaring the prime minister unfit for service, clarifying that its application was for medical issues, and introduced more stringent activation voting. The prime minister can announce his incapacitation, or the government can declare him unfit with a three-quarters majority, both which must be then approved by a two-thirds majority in the Knesset Home Committee.
The Attorney-General’s Office and petitioners have argued that the law was motivated by a desire to improve the legal position of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is under trial for corruption, and his continued service as leader has been conditioned by a conflict of interest agreement. The deal prevents Netanyahu from appointing or promoting law enforcement, judiciary, or prosecutorial officials who could influence his trial. The judicial reform proposes to alter the means for selecting judges, with critics worrying that political actors could be placed on the Supreme Court to preside over a corruption trial appeal. Others worry about the removal of the reasonableness law’s requirement for acting reasonably, which could allow for easier replacement of the attorney-general.
Reports surfaced earlier in the year that the attorney-general was seeking to oust Netanyahu through the procedure over his violation of the conflict of interest agreement, leading to the “Incapacitation Law” that restricted its usage.
Petitioners had called for the striking of what they called a personal and political Basic Law amendment, again raising controversy about the limits of judicial authority.
The court issued an injunction on August 6 for delayed application of the law until the next Knesset, ordering to hear arguments on the postponement at a hearing on Thursday.
5. Cellcom Triple case
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the Cellcom telecommunication company in May, after the Jerusalem District Court rejected the suit over the Cellcom Triple program. In the program, Cellcom doesn’t change for part of its service, but includes the price after 12 months, and raises it without notice to the consumer.
Alon Pomeranc, managing partner at Lipa Meir & Co., said that the ruling created precedent for service providers to properly notify customers about price change, and not just by “hiding it on a bill in the mail.” Goldfeld said that it happens to everyone where people are drawn in by long contracts that promise low charges in the first few months. Pomeranc said that even he was fooled once. Goldfeld said that the requirement would allow people to financially prepare, as prices for their services change.
6. Netanyahu trial
Netanyahu’s corruption trial continued this Jewish year, and isn’t expected to finish in the new one.
The prime minister was indicted in 2019 for Case 1000, Case 2000, and Case 4000. In Case 1000, Netanyahu is alleged to have had conflict of interest by receiving expensive gifts from businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer, while engaging in policy and regulations that would have benefited Milchan.
Milchan took the stand this year, testifying to his close friendship with Netanyahu. Speaking from a makeshift Brighton, UK, courtroom due to illness restricting his ability to travel, Milchan claimed that his gifts were motivated by his affection for the Israeli leader, and preceded his time in public life. Though they had code names for the gifts, it was claimed that this was playful banter.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid also testified in June to discuss a tax law amendment that Milchan allegedly lobbied for, his relationship with the businessman, and the few times that Netanyahu briefly mentioned it to the then finance minister.
Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Gilad Erdan testified in May on Case 4000, in which Netanyahu is alleged to have sought regulatory changes that would benefit Bezeq owner Shaul Elovitch in return for positive coverage in his Walla news outlet. Erdan testified that he wasn’t aware of Netanyahu helping Elovitch speed up sales, and received no instructions from Netanyahu about Bezeq’s complaints about a telecommunications reform.
Netanyahu’s former chief of staff Ari Harow testified as part of a plea bargain for his own fraud and breach of trust charges. He gave testimony about Case 1000 and Case 2000 which alleges that Netanyahu talked with Yediot Aharonot owner Arnon Mozes about weakening competitor Israel Hayom in return for positive coverage. Harow said that Netanyahu sought a deal with Mozes to improve his election standing, and met with him many times discreetly and off the record. Later he sought to facilitate the sale of the paper to a more sympathetic figure. Harow also testified that Netanyahu had sought to resolve Milchan’s US visa issues at the businessman’s request.
In Case 4000, the bribery charge appeared to have weakened, with the judges recommending its retraction because the state would have difficulty proving it. The State Attorney’s Office said that future evidence would prove the charge.
7. Cottage cheese monopoly
In March the Supreme Court accepted the appeal of Tnuva in a case in which it was alleged that the company had engaged in monopolistic price gouging of cottage cheese from 2008 to 2011.
Rotman said that Israel has been grappling with the role of monopoly laws for 25 years. In 2022 the Supreme Court ruled on a case claiming that Coca-Cola was setting excessive prices for bottles of the popular soft drink, and while the class action lawsuit was rejected, the court established a standard for determining monopolistic gouging.
Pomeranc explained that they need to review the market data, which isn’t already available, on the gap between production costs and sales prices, in Israel and even abroad. They need to see how much they are profiting, and then see if the prices are not organic. It is very difficult, courts have noted, to judge a price as extremely high. They then need to check for impact on the public by the raising of prices.
Rotman said that the test is, in practice, difficult to apply. The cottage cheese case demonstrated that. The courts wish to avoid interference in the economy, and in the case of Tnuva there were alternate brand cottage cheeses available for purchase.
Pomeranc noted another case, in which the Tel Aviv District Court rejected a lawsuit against vehicle recovery and tracking company Ituran outright in May. Ituran was declared a monopoly in its field in 2001, and eight years ago was accused of charging excessive prices, but the court said that the evidence didn’t demonstrate great injustice.
Still, Rotman said that the standard for monopolies has been established as a test for all services and major companies to consider. •
Comments are closed.