Your information request under the Freedom of Information Law was denied? Fees, deadlines, grounds for refusal and how to petition the administrative court.
The Freedom of Information Law, 1998, grants every citizen and resident of Israel the right to contact public bodies and receive information in their possession, without needing to justify the request. Nonetheless, not every request is granted: a public body may, under certain circumstances, deny a request or respond to it only partially. In this article we review the foundational principles of the request procedure, the fees and deadlines that apply, the main grounds for denying a request, and the possibility of petitioning the Administrative Court when a request is denied in contravention of law.
Every citizen or resident of Israel may submit a request for information, as may corporations registered in Israel, including associations and public bodies operating for public purposes. The request is submitted to the official responsible for implementing the Freedom of Information Law in the government ministry, local authority, public corporation, or public-funded body to which it is directed. A list of the officials in various bodies is published on the website of the government unit for freedom of information. It is important to clarify: the right to receive information pursuant to the law is an independent right, and there is no need to demonstrate personal interest or concrete benefit in order to exercise it.
A request for information must state that it is submitted pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, and must describe the information sought in a manner that allows the official to identify and locate it. It is recommended to phrase the request as focused and clearly as possible, since an overly general request may encounter difficulty in locating information or may lead to partial denial. Stating the background or purpose for obtaining the information is not mandatory, but may assist when the disclosure of information is subject to discretion. One must enclose with the request proof of payment of the request fee (if applicable), and sometimes also a commitment to bear processing and production costs up to the ceiling set by regulation.
The Freedom of Information (Fees) Regulations, 1999, establish three types of payment, which are updated once a year, on 1 October, according to the Consumer Price Index. As of the latest update published: a request fee is approximately 24 shekels; a processing fee (locating, sorting, and processing the information) is approximately 36 shekels per work hour, starting from the fourth hour; and a production fee for photocopying or printing is approximately 0.24 shekels per page, or approximately 2.96 shekels per computer disk. A requester must commit in advance to bear processing and production costs up to a ceiling of approximately 178 shekels; beyond this amount, the body must contact the requester and obtain approval to continue processing. Requests for personal information about the requester himself or herself, as well as requests by associations operating for public purposes and by researchers in an academic institution, are exempt from the request fee and processing fee for the first seven hours. It is recommended to check the updated amounts with the relevant body when submitting the request, as they change from year to year.
It should be noted that the official's decision regarding the amount of the fee is not immune from challenge: for example, section ו.9 of Procedure 1.4.0001 (the Freedom of Information Law Procedure) of the Population and Immigration Authority provides that a requester may appeal the official's decision regarding the fee amount to the Magistrates' Court in Jerusalem, within 30 days of the date the decision was delivered.
Pursuant to section 7 of the law, a public body must respond to the requester "without delay" and no later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the request by the official. The head of the body, or someone authorized to do so, may extend the deadline for providing a response by 30 additional days, provided that a written notice is given to the requester explaining the need for the extension. For requests that are large in scope or are complex – for example due to the need to locate extensive material, legal complexity, or consultation with many third parties – the head of the body may extend the deadline by an additional 60 days beyond that, so that the total possible period for providing a response may reach 120 days from the date of receipt of the request. The justification for the extension must be individual and tailored to the circumstances of the case, not general. If the request is approved, the body must provide the information in fact within an additional 15 days of the date the decision is issued.
This framework is also reflected in the internal procedures of public bodies. Section ו.10 of Procedure 1.4.0001 (the Freedom of Information Law Procedure) of the Population and Immigration Authority, edition 2 dated 10 December 2025, restates the 30-day framework and the 30-day extension, permits a further extension not exceeding 60 days due to the scope or complexity of the information, and provides that, as a rule, the response will be sent no later than 120 days from the date the request was submitted.
Alongside the grounds giving a public body discretion, section 8 of the law lists circumstances in which a body is permitted – in distinction from required – to refuse a request. Among the grounds: when handling the request requires an unreasonable allocation of resources under the circumstances; when information is more than seven years old and there is genuine difficulty in locating it; when despite reasonable effort the sought information was not found; when the information has already been published and is accessible to the public; and when the information was received from another body and the requester may be directed to it without imposing an unreasonable burden on him or her. It is important to emphasize that this is discretionary judgment by the body and not an automatic refusal obligation, and therefore denial based on section 8 may, in appropriate cases, be examined and appealed.
Alongside the grounds for refusal in section 8, section 9 of the law sets forth two different groups of exceptions, and the distinction between them is very important for anyone whose request has been denied. Section 9(a) lists information that may not be disclosed at all: information whose disclosure is likely to harm the security of the State, its foreign relations, public security, or the security or well-being of a person; information on matters that the Minister of Defense has designated by order for reasons of safeguarding State security; information whose disclosure constitutes an invasion of privacy within the meaning of the Privacy Protection Law, 1981, unless the disclosure is permitted by law; and information that may not be disclosed under any law.
Section 9(b), by contrast, lists information that a body is not required to disclose, but may disclose at its discretion: information whose disclosure is likely to disrupt the proper functioning of the body or its ability to carry out its duties; policy still in the drafting stages; details of negotiations; internal discussions, records of consultations, opinions, drafts, advice, or recommendations given for the purpose of reaching a decision; information relating to the internal management of the body that has no bearing on or importance to the public; trade and professional secrets; information provided to the body on condition that it not be disclosed; the working methods of law-enforcement authorities; disciplinary matters; and information about a deceased person whose disclosure is likely to harm his or her privacy.
The difference is practical, not merely terminological: a refusal based on section 9(b) is a discretionary decision, and as such is subject to judicial review and to a duty to balance it against the public interest in disclosure. In any event, even where one of the exceptions applies, the body must consider whether the non-classified portion can be disclosed, separated from the part that may not be disclosed.
When a public body refuses to disclose information, it must provide the requester with a written notice stating the grounds for refusal, and must indicate that the requester has the right to petition against the decision. Pursuant to section 17 of the law, a petition against a decision to refuse may be filed with the Administrative Court – that is, the District Court sitting as an Administrative Court – except in cases where a classification certificate has been issued, in which case judicial review takes place in the Supreme Court. Territorial jurisdiction is determined according to the location of the body's seat, and in matters concerning real estate – according to the location of the real estate. An alternative, which does not substitute for the judicial procedure but may be a preliminary step, is to file a complaint with the government unit for freedom of information in the Ministry of Justice.
Section ו.8 of Procedure 1.4.0001 requires the official to send the requester a reasoned written decision of denial, referring to the section of the law on which the decision is based and noting the possibility of filing an administrative petition. A denied request is thus, as a rule, one for which there is a written, reasoned document – and this is the document from which the challenge proceeding begins.
The Administrative Court (Procedure) Rules, 2000, require that the petition be filed within 45 days from the date the decision is received or from the date the requester becomes aware of the decision. Late filing may lead to dismissal of the petition at the threshold, unless the court is persuaded that there exists justification for extending the deadline. The fee for filing an administrative petition is, as of 2026, 2,329 shekels, in accordance with the Schedule of the Courts (Fees) Rules, 2007, as updated in the Courts (Fees) Notice, 2025. Beyond the fee, one must also account for the cost of legal representation, preparing an affidavit, and the possibility of being required to pay court costs in accordance with the outcome of the proceedings. Consequently, we recommend examining carefully, before filing a petition, the prospects for success against the costs involved in the proceeding.
In Admin. Appeal 3908/11 State of Israel – Courts Administration v. TheMarker (22 Sep 2014), the Supreme Court held that the right to information passes through three "filters": section 1 of the law, which confers the fundamental right; the exceptions in sections 8 and 9; and section 17, which authorizes the court to order disclosure of information even against the position of the body. That case also clarified the distinction within section 9 – between cases in which the information may not be disclosed (section 9(a)) and cases in which the body has discretion whether to disclose it (section 9(b)).
In Adm. Petition (Tel Aviv) 58507-02-26 (27 May 2026), the court considered a petition filed both under the Freedom of Information Law and on the ground of a failure to respond. The body attached to its response to the petition all the documents in the file, and the court held that this exhausted the petition insofar as it concerned the Freedom of Information Law – but granted it insofar as it concerned the failure to respond, noting that under the Administrative Procedure Amendment Law (Decisions and Reasons), 1958, failure to issue a decision within three months is equivalent to denying the request without reasons, and ordered the body to pay the costs of the proceeding in the amount of 15,000 shekels. The practical lesson: providing the information only after the petition is filed does not render the proceeding moot for purposes of costs.
In Adm. Petition (Haifa) 34233-02-26 (9 Jun 2026), a couple requested the full documents from their personal file at the Population and Immigration Authority. The court clarified that the right to receive information about a file being handled with respect to a person need not necessarily rest on the Freedom of Information Law, but derives from the body's basic duty, and that the mere existence of a pending legal proceeding does not justify withholding information. Nonetheless, the petition was denied: the law applies to information in the body's possession, there is no obligation to create new information, and where the body declares that it has provided everything in its possession, that declaration is presumed correct unless an evidentiary basis to the contrary is laid.
In Adm. Petition (Jerusalem) 14626-12-22 (11 Jul 2023), a petition whose main subject was the failure to respond was struck out after the response was given while the proceeding was pending. The court held that the grounds for denial could not be challenged before they were given, and that the way to challenge the response received was through a new proceeding; the fee was refunded subject to the rules, and the question of costs was referred to separate argument by the parties.
No. The Freedom of Information Law does not require a requester to detail why he or she needs the information, and the right to receive it exists even without demonstrating personal interest. Nonetheless, when the disclosure of information is subject to the body's discretion (for example, pursuant to section 8), providing background information for the request may assist the body in deciding in favor of the requester and reduce the likelihood of denial.
Section 8 grants the body discretion as to whether to refuse, under circumstances such as an unreasonable burden or old, hard-to-locate information. Section 9 is divided into two: section 9(a) lists information that may not be disclosed at all – for example, information whose disclosure harms State security or constitutes an invasion of privacy; while section 9(b) lists information that the body is not required to disclose, but may disclose at its discretion – for example, internal discussions or information whose disclosure is likely to disrupt the body's proper functioning. It is always important to check whether at least part of the information can be disclosed, after separating out the classified portion.
Yes. Contacting the government unit for freedom of information is an additional option, but is not a prerequisite for filing a petition to the Administrative Court. A requester who has received a refusal may choose to go directly to court, subject to complying with the deadline set out in the rules.
Failure to respond within the deadline, including after the end of possible extension periods, may itself be considered a decision subject to review, and sometimes even a de facto refusal. In addition, the Administrative Procedure Amendment Law (Decisions and Reasons), 1958, provides that failure to issue a decision within three months is equivalent to denying the request without reasons. In such a case it is recommended to contact the body in writing to clarify the reason for the delay, and depending on the circumstances, to consider contacting the government unit for freedom of information or initiating legal proceedings.
The Population and Immigration Authority has a dedicated procedure – Procedure 1.4.0001 (the Freedom of Information Law Procedure), edition 2 dated 10 December 2025. Section ז.1 of the procedure governs requests for information about a person from his or her personal file, and requires an original or digitally signed power of attorney when the request is submitted through a representative; in its absence, the information will be sent to the address registered in the population registry of the person to whom the information relates. It should also be known that documents relating to a third party – for example, the interview protocol of another person – may not be disclosed on grounds of invasion of privacy under section 9(a)(3) of the law, as held in Appeal (Tel Aviv) 3021-17 (5 Feb 2018).