The firm provides entrepreneurs, contractors, and private owners with a wide spectrum of services, encompassing all legal aspects relevant to the real estate field:
Shalom Yerushalayim Divon et al. v. The Petah Tikva Local Planning and Construction Committee
In this groundbreaking ruling, the Supreme Court established that apartment owners who construct their apartments and reside there, or have relatives residing for a minimum of 4 years post-completion, are eligible for an exemption from the improvement levy. This entitlement is irrespective of other landowners seeking the same privilege.
Hamami v. the Rishon Lezion Local Committee
This pivotal ruling brought about a substantial shift in compensation for detrimental programs. It proclaimed that customary reduction of 40% from compensation for approving urban development plans detrimental to landowners is no longer valid.
The Pri Haarez distribution company v. the Kfar Saba local council
This case involves a lawsuit under Section 197 of the Planning and Construction Law, addressing reduced land value due to an approved city building plan. This ruling introduced the initial definition of “reasonable” damage, setting a threshold beyond which authorities must provide compensation to affected landowners.
Our office handled a lawsuit against the Bnei Brak local planning and construction committee due to prolonged building permit delays. The District Court in Tel Aviv-Yafo (T.A. 41896-02-15) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the committee to compensate them with millions of NIS. The ruling established that the local committee’s conduct, including its denial of the building permit, was unlawful. This defiance disregarded explicit rulings from both the Tel Aviv District Planning and Building Appeals Committee and the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Administrative Affairs Court. This transgression resulted in financial losses, justifying compensation by the local committee.
Moshe Shoob v. the Bnei Brak Local Planning and Construction Committee
The Bnei Brak municipality linked the approval of building permits under National Outline Plan 38 to the provision of public space on the ground floor of each building undergoing additions per National Outline Plan 38. Following an initial appeal, the district court ruled that such a condition falls outside the local committee’s jurisdiction. Despite this, the Bnei Brak local committee proceeded to issue a notice, in accordance with Sections 77 and 78 of the law, stipulating that a building permit will not be granted according to National Outline Plan 38 unless public space is allocated on the ground floor or until a plan allowing the committee to demand such allocation is approved. The appeals committee, in its decision, upheld the appeal and declared the defendant’s publication null and void.
Furthermore, the committee determined that it is not feasible to impose a condition mandating the reservation of ground floor area for future public needs on every permit request.
Additional Civil Hearing 1333/02, the local planning and building committee of Ra’anana v. Horowitz, Noah (6) 289, 12.5.2004
A judgment was discussed in the Supreme Court, with proceedings that even led to an additional hearing before an expanded panel. The established legal principle from this judgment defines the “reasonableness” of damage, enabling the local committee to avoid compensating landowners.
This case involves a claim for compensation under Section 197 of the Planning and Construction Law, 5655 1965, filed by Ms. Yehudit Horowitz (“the respondent”). The claim pertains to damage incurred to her land due to the approval of a city building plan.
The district court mandated the Ra’anana Committee for Planning and Construction (“the appellant”) to provide compensation to the respondent. Following the decision, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The court’s majority opinion held that the 11.8% decrease in value of the respondent’s land exceeds a reasonable threshold for assessing the applicability of Section 200 of the Planning and Construction Law, 5655 1965 (“Section 200”). Consequently, the appellant was directed to compensate the respondent for the incurred damages.
A minority opinion held that while the damage might not exceed the boundaries of reasonableness, it remains fair to compensate the respondent for the diminished value.
Subsequently, the appellant petitioned for a further hearing regarding the appeal decision. During this hearing, the Supreme Court ruled that, to be exempt from compensation under Section 200, three cumulative conditions must be met. One of these conditions is that the damage to the land must not exceed what is deemed reasonable under the given circumstances.
In this specific case, it was determined that the reasonableness condition was met. However, due to the unlawful actions of the planning and construction authorities, which resulted in damage to the respondent’s land due to a plan, the local committee was not entitled to an exemption under Section 200.
Consequently, the petition was rejected, and the appellant was instructed to pay damages to the respondent.
In the mentioned ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the accurate method for calculating expropriation compensation, specifically addressing the exclusion of “lost lease fees” based on hypothetical rents tied to fluctuations in land value.
In 1969, a notice was issued under Sections 5 and 7 of the Land Ordinance regarding land owned by the endowment in Jerusalem. On February 22, 1973, a notice was published in accordance with Section 19 of the Land Ordinance, transferring land ownership to the state.
Subsequently, an industrial development plan was formulated for the land’s transformation into a science-intensive industrial zone.
Following unsuccessful negotiations about compensation rates, the endowment filed a lawsuit in 2005 in the District Court of Jerusalem. The endowment claimed compensation for lost lease payments, invoking Section 13 of the Expropriation Ordinance (repealed by amendment [No. 3] 577-2010). The claim covered the period from expropriation to the lawsuit filing date.
The District Court upheld the endowment’s claim and interpreted, based on Section 13 of the Land Ordinance, that compensation for the loss of lease fees should be calculated using the endowment’s method, tied to the changing value of the expropriated property.
The Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s decision, rejecting the state’s appeal.
In this significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 13’s remedy aims to address delays in expropriation compensation payments, rather than land usage. The endorsed approach is to employ the endowment method. This method involves calculating the evolving value of the land to determine compensation linked to the loss of lease payments.
In a ruling by the District Court of the Central District, presided over by Honorable Judge B. Arnon, the Israel Land Authority has been directed to provide significant compensation amounting to millions of shekels. The compensation is attributed to the Authority’s failure to expedite the approval of construction plans, which subsequently caused delays in the occupancy of a commercial center.
Represented by our firm, Isco company contended in its lawsuit that it was exempt from remitting payment to the Israel Land Authority for transferring fifty percent of construction rights within a principal area shared between two lots. This contention led to a standoff, as the company’s application for a building permit and the lease contract remained unsigned by the administrative manager, thereby causing construction delays for the commercial center.
The district court cited a previous Supreme Court decision (civil appeal 3979/01 ISCO BUILDING & PROPERTIES LTD against the Israel Land Authority), ruling that the Authority lacks the authority to demand any payment from the company for the transfer of building rights between lots. The court found that the requirement imposed by the Authority for permit fees linked to the relocation of construction rights lacked legal grounding, whether in legislation or the development contract mutually agreed upon. As a result, the administrative manager’s refusal to endorse the building permit application and lease contract was deemed unjustifiable.
Consequently, the District Court has ruled in favor of Isco, compelling the Israel Lands Authority to remunerate the company with several million NIS in compensation to offset damages caused by the construction plan signing delay.
In 2012, Savyoney Yavne Ltd., represented by our office, initiated a financial claim against Yavne Municipality, Yavne Local Planning and Construction Committee, and the Israel Lands Authority for breach of agreement and undue delay in planning procedures concerning land purchased by Savyoney Yavne in the Yavne River area.
The company’s lawsuit seeks compensation for financial losses incurred due to delays in planning procedures for the land obtained through an Israel Lands Authority tender.
As per a 2004 compromise agreement (subsequently endorsed as a judgment), the authorities committed to advancing planning and approving a city building plan, enabling Savyoney Yavne to construct 200 housing units in Yavne’s western business center complex.
Following the agreement, Savyoney Yavne expected reasonable progress in asserting its property rights and initiating construction within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, the authorities failed to expedite approval of the city building plan for the land, resulting in its non-approval upon lawsuit filing.
Savyoney Yavne’s lawsuit alleges negligence on the part of the defendants concerning the promised city building plan, accusing them of unreasonable procrastination.
Central District Court Judge Yehezkel Keinar ruled in favor of Savyoney Yavne, ordering the Israel Lands Authority, Yavne Municipality, and the local committee to pay approximately NIS 13 million as compensation for agreement violation and delayed planning procedures.
The court stated that a reasonable timeframe for real estate plan approval is around 5 years. Consequently, compensation is required for the period exceeding 5 years from the agreement’s signing. Savyoney Yavne’s damages were assessed based on annual land yield loss (6% of evolving land value).
The court clarified that the land’s increased value during this period, stemming from broader real estate market trends, does not impact Savyoney Yavne’s entitlement to compensation. The increase results from market forces rather than planning authorities’ violations against the company.
Massad Bank vs. State of Israel
This Supreme Court ruling established that owners of expropriated land are entitled to compensation for lost lease payments until the State of Israel provides compensation.
