The Applicant, N. Kraus: We had all kinds of reasonsAnd one of them was that we wanted to reach a less polluted neighborhood, where less polluted air deserves.
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: Is that why you moved?
The Applicant, N. Kraus: One of the reasons. Not the only reason.
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: So what were the other reasons?
The Applicant, N. Kraus: We wanted to expand the apartment, we wanted an apartment with a balcony and a nice sea view. We loved the neighborhood, but we could also find something like this in Neve Sha'anan, there are also nicer apartments, and one of our main motivations for choosing Ramat Eshkol and not another neighborhood is because it's a neighborhood that gets much less air from the Gulf, and Neve Sha'anan, where we lived, is a very neighborhood, where the polluted air from the factories is much more present.
(page 1034, lines 12-23).
- On the face of it, in order for the right to choose of any of the applicants to be violated in a manner that means 'infringement of autonomy', it is not enough that they know about the (alleged) air pollution or that they are aware of the cause of it (according to them). It is not enough that the applicants felt fear and anxiety, they had to prove that the pollution factor (the emissions of the factories) violated their right to choose, and in what way they denied it.
- As it emerges from the data detailed in the Respondents' evidence and the expert opinion on their behalf, inter alia, based on the readings of the monitoring stations in the area, the ambient air quality in the Haifa area was no worse than the air quality in other cities noted in comparison in Israel and abroad. Otherwise, the applicants were unable to prove with reliable evidence (scientific and otherwise).
- In Class Action (Haifa) 9272-11-19 Lev v. Shemen Industries in a Tax Appeal (published in Nevo, November 24, 2023), it was held, inter alia:
Whether an infringement of autonomy constitutes an independent cause of action or a head of damage that constitutes part of the non-pecuniary damage, the existence of fear and fear of risk is not sufficient to substantiate the claim of infringement of autonomy and establish grounds for compensation.