Globes, Eric Mirowski, 09.03.2020

"Outrageous behavior", "a really unusual conduct that is expected of an administrative authority" and "a violation of public trust". In those words, the Tel Aviv District Appeals Committee called the behavior of the municipality of Givatayim. This after the municipal planning and building committee tried to collect a levy in a way that contradicted - consciously, the commission said - a high court ruling.

On the face of it is a non-dramatic story. In 2012, the couple purchased a plot on Friend Street in the city, which had an old ground-level building. The two then submitted a plan to demolish the building and construct a two-story three-story building, according to a plan approved 17 years ago.

In 2015, through the local planning and construction committee, the municipality demanded that the couple pay her a NIS 46,000 hike.However, the property owners asked for another opinion, and contacted the appraiser on their behalf who determined that the improvement levy was much higher than necessary. The deciding judge, Dorit Freel, appointed by the parties in 2016 determined that they should pay only NIS 2,400. The local committee appealed to the provincial committee against Periel's determination, and only now - four years later, it was decided to reject the municipality's position.

Sellers did not pay a levy

The discrepancy between the commission's claim and the appraiser's decision stemmed from a legal case known as the "Alik Ron Halacha".Halacha states that when a person purchases a mortgaged property (ie, previous owners of property have paid a pre-sale surcharge to the local authority against him), the local committee is authorized to collect an additional portion of the improvement levy when a building permit is issued.

In the case of Friend Street, the decisive appraiser decided that for the source plan, the seller had to pay 90% of the improvement, while the local committee's decision to issue a building permit for the plan requested by the couple should only be charged 10% of the improvement. This is because the committee's discretion added very little to the program's improvement. Apparently, these were closed and clear on the basis of legal practice, but the local committee appealed the decisive appraiser's decision.

On appeal, the local committee claimed that it did not charge the property sellers with the improvement levy for the better plan, because at that time in Givatayim it was customary to collect a surcharge only when building permits were issued and not when selling the properties.Among other things, the local committee claimed that the decisive juror was wrong, that she had decided on a legal issue that was not within her authority and that she had misinterpreted the rule of Elic Ron.

The Tel Aviv District Compensation and Reconciliation Commission, headed by Gilat Eyal, has completely rejected the local committee's position, using harsh words to express its dissatisfaction with the local committee's conduct. "The appeal before us shows that the decision of Elik Ron's law is to the detriment of the local committee, which does not act on it. It has already been said - although it seems almost unnecessary - that when the local committee refuses to come to terms with a ruling that came before the Supreme Court, To establish a cause of action in a decisive mole, which accurately implements this halakhah, "reads already at the opening of the decision in the case.

On the allegation made by the local committee that Elyak Ron's case was irrelevant to the case before us and that it only applies when the property seller was charged for the sale action (levy levy), the appeals committee wrote that it was "absent of any reasonable element." The local committee's argument that this was a legal issue, and therefore the decisive appraiser should not have dealt with the case at all, was rejected outright by the appeal committee. This is a ruling that this argument was not raised at all in discussions with the crucial appraiser.

"Idle appeal, saturated with internal contradictions"

Finally, the Appeals Committee criticized the Givatayim local committee for serial conduct in this regard, stating that "Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the local committee has presented contradictory claims regarding the collection of the improvement levy for contingent rights."

As an example, the appeals committee cited similar allegations in the past by the Givatayim local committee regarding another project.According to the committee, the municipality also made conflicting arguments regarding the levy. This case reached the Supreme Court, which rejected the municipality's claims.

The committee strongly stated its remarks and wrote that "we believe that the local committee's scandalous behavior forced respondents to resort to unnecessary proceedings and to incur unnecessary expenses ... so as to the procedure before the crucial appraiser - which was not necessary, if the local committee had acted Elyak Ron's judgment, if she had neglected to clarify her legal position and had raised her claim that this was a legal dispute as soon as the decision was brought before the decisive appraiser, then the payment of the decisive appraiser's salary would be spared. In internal contradictions and contradictions to previous positions presented by the local committee Meath. This conduct certainly goes far beyond the conduct expected of an administrative authority and is certainly not required even if the authority wishes to change a law that emerged before the Supreme Court. "
In light of the conduct of the local committee, the appeals committee has allocated expenses of NIS 50,000 plus VAT to the local committee.

Givatayim Municipality reports: "We believe that we have acted lawfully. In the High Court of Honor, as part of the" Acro "judgment of 2018, Elyak Ron's move was disqualified, stating that" the arrangement is problematic to me. It is not grounded in the text of the law and it also creates Therefore, it seems that the criticism voiced in the appeal committee's decision stems from the fact that the local "daring" committee stands for the good of the citizen.This is a principled public argument that does deal with existing halakhic interpretation, and the local committee anticipated the possibility of criticism but decided to fulfill its public function. When public attitudes and struggles are raised, they should be prepared to be criticized. We are not alarmed by substantive legal criticism. ".