בג"ץ דחה את עתירת רע"ם להקפאת הריסות הבתים

The High Court of Justice (Bagatz) rejected a petition filed by MK Mansour Abbas and the Ra'am party, which sought to limit enforcement actions in planning and construction, and the evacuation of public lands during the election period for the 26th Knesset and until the new government is formed. The petitioners requested that enforcement actions be carried out only in exceptional, urgent, and essential cases, without raising concerns of political use of enforcement powers. The petition was directed against the Minister of National Security, the Israel Police, the National Authority for Land Enforcement, and the Israel Land Authority. It was argued that the Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is running in the upcoming elections, is using his enforcement powers in planning and construction, particularly in demolishing the homes of Arab citizens, as a tool to advance his election campaign. The petitioners claimed that in the weeks leading up to the elections, enforcement actions by the National Authority for Land Enforcement in Arab communities and unrecognized villages intensified, without any urgency justifying them at this time, while the minister was present at demolition sites and published propaganda videos boasting about them. They further alleged that this conduct constitutes an illegal use of public assets for election propaganda, in violation of election law, and is tainted by conflicts of interest and extraneous political considerations, leading to unequal enforcement and harming the duty of public officials to act with restraint during elections. The petitioners also contended that demolishing Arab homes during this period harms their ability to exercise their right to vote. Additionally, they claimed that the Israel Land Authority increased its use of powers to evacuate public lands in Arab communities in coordination with the police, with some enforcement proceedings seeking to set evacuation and demolition dates in Arab towns starting on election day itself, October 27th, raising concerns of widespread demolitions on election day that could impede Arab citizens' ability to vote. Consequently, the petitioners requested that building demolitions and land evacuations during the election period be conditional on prior, reasoned written approval from the Attorney General, and only be permitted in cases of immediate danger to human life or essential, non-deferrable public interest, provided no political use of enforcement powers is suspected. They also asked that the Attorney General instruct the minister to refrain from any involvement in decisions on demolitions and evacuations during the election period, and that the Israel Land Authority refrain from executing evacuation orders, especially on election day. The court, in its decision authored by Justice Gila Kenaf Steinmetz, stated that the requested relief was too broad and that the petitioners had not presented sufficient factual basis to justify judicial intervention. "Indeed, statements by the minister and certain data on the scope of demolitions were attached to the petition; however, no basis was laid to indicate that there has been a recent change in enforcement policy, let alone one influenced by election considerations," wrote the justice. She added that the partial data provided did not indicate a "dramatic increase" in demolitions or selective enforcement as alleged. The justice further ruled that the petition should be dismissed outright due to delay and failure to exhaust remedies. She noted that the petitioners first approached the Attorney General only on October 9th, despite the Knesset dissolving on July 17th, and did not approach other respondents at all before filing the petition. "As is known, in election-related proceedings, even a delay of days can constitute a delay; in our case, over two and a half months have passed," the justice stated. She also emphasized that the petitioners' inquiry to the Attorney General only concerned freezing home demolitions and issuing administrative orders under planning and building laws, and did not include the other remedies later requested in the petition. Furthermore, the petition was filed only about a week after the initial inquiry, without giving the Attorney General sufficient time to respond, and about ten days before the elections. "A petitioner seeking to bring about a fundamental change in enforcement procedures during an election period must approach the relevant authorities well in advance, in a manner that allows them to examine the matter and conduct orderly staff work," wrote the justice. Alongside these reasons, Kenaf Steinmetz ruled that the petition should also be rejected on its merits, recalling that the court is reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the competent authorities in setting enforcement policy. The justice stressed that in this case, the petitioners sought an unusual remedy, the opposite of what is typically requested in petitions concerning law enforcement. While in other petitions, petitioners seek to compel authorities to enforce the law, in this case, Abbas and Ra'am sought to suspend its enforcement. "A distinction must be made between the discretion granted to authorities in setting enforcement policy and priorities in its implementation, and issuing a sweeping order for non-enforcement, in practice, without individual examination of the circumstances justifying it," she ruled. Finally, the justice emphasized that the request to order authorities to slow down enforcement activity also raises difficulties, due to "the problematic message it could convey regarding the importance of upholding the rule of law."