Israel Appeals Ruling Ordering Payout for Demolished Structure

Israel's state enforcement authority is appealing a lower court ruling that ordered the state to pay approximately NIS 198,000 in damages for a structure demolished in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shuafat. The Jerusalem District Prosecutor's Office filed the appeal on behalf of the Israel Land Authority, arguing that the claimant, Iyad Radwan, failed to prove his rights to the property and that the construction itself was illegal.

The original ruling by the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court found that during the execution of an administrative demolition order, a portion of the ground floor ceiling, not included in the order, was also destroyed. The court determined the state had exceeded its authority and acted negligently, ordering the state to pay Radwan NIS 198,279 plus interest and NIS 7,000 in expenses. The state's counterclaim to recover demolition costs was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

In its appeal, the state contends the lower court did not adequately consider that Radwan built without a permit and even rebuilt a second floor after it had already been demolished in a previous order. The state also points to the court's own findings of Radwan's "blatant lies" and "reprehensible conduct," arguing this should have impacted the compensation amount. The state asserts that Radwan had over five months after the demolition order was issued to carry out the demolition himself with less destructive means, but failed to do so.

The appeal further argues that Radwan did not prove ownership rights to the land, citing alleged defects in his power of attorney and a prior arbitration agreement. The state also notes the land was declared essential for security purposes in 2007 for the separation barrier, suggesting this further undermines Radwan's claim for damages.

Additionally, the state disputes the lower court's findings on negligence and the shifting of the burden of proof, claiming these arguments were raised too late in the proceedings. The state also questions the calculation of damages, stating that actual repair invoices and receipts should have been required, not just expert opinions based on general assumptions. Finally, the state argues its counterclaim for demolition costs should have been dismissed, not rejected, and seeks to have the original ruling overturned and Radwan ordered to pay appeal costs.