(Emphasis added - L.G.)
- With regard to the considerations guiding the decision as to whether it is a "dealer", it was ruled that:
"At the basis of the decision as to whether it is a 'dealer' are based on two main considerations according to the case law – the nature of the action being examined, and the purpose of the Consumer Protection Law (the Asel case, at paragraph 16). The essence of the action was described by us above, while the purpose of the Consumer Protection Law includes, according to case law, "to impose conduct on the business sector and to establish rules of fair play in the relationship between the consumer and the dealer"; to strengthen the consumer's ability to make an informed decision; and "to reduce the power and information gaps between suppliers who have expertise in their field of business, and between the individual" (Civil Appeal Authority 2701/97 State of Israel v. Chertok, IsrSC 56(2) 876 (2002), at p. 884; Civil Appeal 6930/19 Har Paz v. Negev Ceramics Marketing (1982) in a Tax Appeal (February 6, 2023, hereinafter: the Negev Ceramics case).
As an example of the application of these considerations, we can cite the additional hearing in Administrative 5519/15 Younes v. Mei HaGalil Regional Water and Sewage Corporation in a Tax Appeal (December 17, 2019), in which a majority opinion ruled that in collecting water and sewage tariffs, the water and sewage corporations act as a "dealer", and accordingly a class action can be filed against them in respect of this according to Item 1. The reasoning was based on the objectives of the law by virtue of which the corporations were established, which have clear business characteristics, and on the fact that water and sewage tariffs are determined according to real costs. As another example, in the Assel case, it was determined that the Israel Land Authority acted as a 'dealer' in its decisions to grant an exemption from permit fees, since the dominant nature of the decision is business-commercial."