Administrative Law

Representation against public authorities — High Court of Justice petitions, administrative court petitions, appeals against administrative decisions, freedom of information requests, and tender disputes.

When a state authority, government ministry, or public body acts contrary to law, infringes on your rights, or makes an arbitrary decision with real impact — administrative law provides you with tools to challenge these decisions before the court. Moldavski Law represents individuals, NGOs, and business entities in administrative proceedings against all levels of public authority, making informed use of the grounds for judicial review shaped by Israeli jurisprudence over decades.

High Court of Justice (Bagatz) Petitions

The High Court of Justice is the supreme authority for judicial review of executive branch actions. A petition to the High Court is filed when a public authority acted without authority, contrary to law, with disproportionate infringement on fundamental rights, or when no effective remedy exists in another court. Our office drafts High Court petitions in diverse areas — including petitions concerning immigration policy, freedom of information, minority rights, and public body decisions. Drafting a High Court petition requires not only legal expertise but also understanding of how the Supreme Court conducts its proceedings and the issues it tends to accept for hearing — experience our office has accumulated through representation before this court.

Administrative Petitions to the Administrative Court

The Administrative Affairs Court is the first instance authorized to hear administrative petitions against decisions of many authorities, including government ministries, planning committees, local authorities, and the Population and Immigration Authority. An administrative petition can challenge a decision on its merits, argue for a procedural defect, or request urgent interim relief to stay its implementation pending clarification. Our office examines every contested administrative decision through the lens of key review grounds — lack of authority, disproportionality, extraneous considerations, improper discrimination, and hearing defects — and files well-constructed petitions with prepared evidence.

Administrative Appeals Against Authority Decisions

Not every challenge to an administrative decision requires a court petition. In many cases, an internal administrative appeal process exists — before an appeals committee, a supervisory official in a government ministry, or a special administrative body — that must be exhausted before turning to a judicial forum. Our office represents clients in administrative appeal proceedings across various fields, negotiates with the relevant authority, and prepares the ground for judicial appeal if the appeal process does not yield results. Filing a well-reasoned and well-documented appeal significantly improves prospects even at later stages.

Public Tenders

Israeli tender law grants every bidder the right to a fair, equal, and transparent tender process. When a tender committee disqualifies a bid unlawfully, favors another bidder based on improper considerations, or conducts the process in violation of the Mandatory Tenders Regulations — the decision can be challenged before the administrative court. Our office represents bidders whose bids were unlawfully disqualified, files requests to stay contract execution, and conducts proceedings to annul flawed tender results. Simultaneously, we advise public bodies on proper tender management.

Freedom of Information and Document Access

The Freedom of Information Law, 1998, grants every citizen the right to receive information held by public authorities, unless an explicit statutory exception applies. This right is a powerful tool — for private individuals seeking information about themselves, for journalists and researchers, and for organizations seeking to expose public policy. Our office files focused and tactical freedom of information requests, handles refusals and unreasonable delays, and files court petitions when the authority refuses to provide information it is obligated to disclose. In certain cases, a freedom of information request is filed as part of a broader strategy for managing the main legal proceeding.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between an administrative petition and a High Court petition?

An administrative petition is filed with the District Court sitting as an Administrative Affairs Court, and is intended for challenging decisions of a defined list of public bodies. A High Court petition is filed directly with the Supreme Court, and is used primarily when no other court has jurisdiction or when the issue has exceptional constitutional or public importance.

How quickly must one act after receiving a negative administrative decision?

Limitation periods in administrative law are very short. For administrative petitions, it is usually 45 days from the date of the decision, and in urgent cases such as tenders — action must be taken within just a few days. Late consultation with a lawyer may damage the ability to challenge the decision.

Is it mandatory to exhaust internal administrative proceedings before petitioning the court?

Generally, yes. The court tends to dismiss petitions where the petitioner did not exhaust the proceedings available to them before the authority itself. However, there are cases where direct court access is possible — especially when the internal process is ineffective or when urgent interim relief is needed.

Can monetary compensation be obtained from a public authority that acted unlawfully?

Yes, although this involves a separate proceeding from the administrative petition. A tort claim against a public authority is filed in civil court and requires proving a wrong — usually negligence or breach of statutory duty — and actual damage caused. Supreme Court rulings have recognized tortious liability of authorities in cases of arbitrary decisions causing direct damage, but the evidentiary threshold is relatively high.

What can be done when a public authority delays and fails to decide on a request?

Authority silence — meaning failure to render a decision within a reasonable or statutorily prescribed period — is itself a ground for petition. The court may order the authority to decide within a defined deadline, and in extreme cases may even reprimand it and award costs. Court action is not always necessary — sometimes a professional letter from an attorney prompts a quick response from the authority before a petition is even filed.

Can an interim order be obtained to stay implementation of an administrative decision?

Yes, and this is often the first and most urgent step. The court may issue a temporary interim order staying the implementation of the decision until the petition is heard on its merits. Conditions for obtaining the order include demonstrating a reasonable chance of the petition's success and a favorable balance of harms. The faster the application is made after the decision, the greater the chance of obtaining the order.

Is a public authority required to give reasons for its decisions?

The duty to give reasons is a fundamental principle in Israeli administrative law. An authority that does not explain its decision, or whose reasoning is superficial and fails to address substantive arguments raised before it, is administratively defective and can be challenged in court. Inadequate reasoning is one of the most common findings in Israeli administrative case law and serves as an independent ground for overturning the decision.

Articles on this topic

Need legal advice? We're here to help.