Title: High Court Rejects Petition Challenging Freeze on Illegal Construction Enforcement in Judea and Samaria
Last night, the High Court accepted the state’s arguments defending the policy of freezing enforcement proceedings against illegal construction in Judea and Samaria. The court ruled that the policy “does not go beyond the realm of reasonableness” while criticizing the state for conflicting claims. This decision marks another chapter in the ongoing legal battles surrounding the issue.
The petition was filed by the Regavim movement, challenging the procedure of the Ministry of Defense and the Civil Administration that automatically freezes enforcement procedures in Area C of Judea and Samaria if the owner of an illegal building submits an application for a retroactive building permit or appeals against the rejection of the permit application.
In the ruling, Judge Grosskopf referred to the recently enacted law of reasonableness in the Basic Judiciary Law. The judge stated that the decision-making authority lies with the professional elements, such as the commanding general and the head of the Civil Administration, rather than the Minister of Defense. This led the court to conclude that the law of reasonableness is not applicable to the petition.
The procedure in question originates from Jordanian law, which currently governs planning and construction procedures in Judea and Samaria. According to this law, enforcement proceedings are automatically suspended when a permit application or an appeal against the rejection of an application is pending. In practice, this freeze can persist for several years, allowing illegal construction to continue unabated.
Data provided by the Regavim movement reveals that between 2018 and 2020, out of 1,302 permit applications, none were approved, 801 were rejected, and 500 are still pending. Similarly, 475 appeals were rejected out of 479 judged, indicating an abuse of the appeals process to gain immunity from demolition.
During the hearing, the state argued that freezing enforcement proceedings is necessary due to enforcement priorities and an expansive interpretation of the Jordanian law. However, the court found inconsistencies in the state’s arguments, with President Hayut questioning their compatibility with each other.
President Hayut also criticized the state for failing to present up-to-date data on the number of permit applications and appeals. She emphasized the importance of periodically evaluating the policy to ensure it aligns with current circumstances.
Despite these criticisms, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that there were no sufficient grounds for intervention. The court determined that the existence of the procedure “does not exceed the scope of reasonableness” and subsequently rejected the petition.
Regavim’s attorney, Boaz Arazi, expressed disappointment with the court’s decision and called for an amendment of the procedure. Arazi argued that rewarding Palestinian construction offenders with immunity was unreasonable and urged the political leadership to intervene and rectify the situation.
As the legal battle continues, the issue of freezing enforcement proceedings against illegal construction in Judea and Samaria remains contentious and unresolved, prompting calls for changes to the procedure and further examination by the relevant authorities.
Disclaimer: This news article is based on the provided content and does not reflect the opinions or views of the author or the platform.