Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 23432-11-24 Metro Motor Marketing (1981) Ltd. v. Ministry of Transport and Road Safety Vehicle and Maintenance Services Division - part 10

Against the background of the aforesaid, the appellant's complaint regarding the depth of the opinion should not be accepted.  The appellant's position is inappropriate with the manner in which judicial review of the Administration's decisions is conducted, and should not be accepted.  The appellant argues that this opens the door to the imposition of sanctions on the basis of competition considerations without judicial review of the factual and professional aspects of the decision, in contrast to the existing law, which allows for an appeal to the Competition Tribunal, which conducts a professional review on the merits of the matter.  However, in practice, this argument does not attack the Administrator's decision, but rather the provisions of the Law (and needless to say, no basis has been laid before us for examining such a claim.  See in this context: High Court of Justice 4794-08-24 Street v. National Insurance Institute, paragraph 5 (January 7, 2025); Civil Appeal 993/19 Anonymous v. State of Israel - Ministry of Defense, paragraph 41 (July 5, 2022); Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 2966/19 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH‏ v. Minister of the Interiorparagraphs 10-11 (5.11.2019)).  In any event, even in the proceeding submitted to the Competition Tribunal, there is no "rehearing" as claimed by the appellant.  This Court noted this inInterest Ashdod Port:

"In contrast to 'regular' judicial review under the rules of administrative law, including judicial review of the decisions of the Commissioner sitting as the High Court of Justice [...], the provisions of the Competition Law, combined with the tools provided by the Competition Court, tell us that the manner in which the Director-General's decisions are examined by the Competition Court is broader: its role is to exercise independent discretion and to examine in depth the issue that is the subject of the Director-General's decision; He has the authority not only to approve or cancel the decision, but also to make another decision in its place.  [...] At the same time, the scope of the judicial review exercised by an administrative tribunal is always derived from the context at hand, including the nature of the subject matter at hand, the composition of the tribunal and the competence of its members, as well as the tools available to it [...].  Therefore, although the Competition Tribunal has the tools and expertise to conduct an examination on the merits of the matter, this is not a de-novo proceeding, and the Director-General's decision that underlies the appeal that was placed before it, and the data presented therein, is given considerable weight, given the knowledge, tools, expertise and accumulated experience at his disposal [...]" (ibid., paragraphs 41 and 44; see also: Civil Appeal 3389/06 Antitrust Authority v. Dor-Alon Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd., IsrSC 61(3) 757, 788-789 (2006); High Court of Justice 4874/21 Elyakim Ben Ari in Tax  Appeal v. Israel Land Authority, paragraphs 29-33 (February 6, 2022)).

54. Thus, even these arguments of the appellant have no substance and should be rejected.

Conclusion

55. The appellant has not been able to point to a reason that justifies our intervention in the judgment of the District Court. Therefore, I would recommend to my colleagues that we dismiss the appeal and charge the appellant with the respondent's expenses in the sum of NIS 50,000.
56. I would also recommend to my colleagues that in the circumstances of the case, it was instructed that the appellant must notify the respondent within 30 days for which product it intends to renew the importer's license in its possession in relation to motorcycles – Yamaha or Kawasaki; and that the importer's license for the product you choose not to continue importing will be valid until June 30, 2026. In this context, I do not believe that there is room to grant the appellant's alternative request to wait with the implementation of the decision until the respondent publishes the criteria.  It is clear that insofar as the criteria are met to justify a change in the director's decision, the way is open for her to apply to him with an appropriate request.