Thus, for example, the non-renewal of a firearms license for a person who possesses a weapon for hobby purposes is not the same as the non-renewal of a license to transport hazardous materials to a business whose essence (in whole or at least a significant part of it) is to transport hazardous materials.
Indeed, in both cases, this is a decision concerning non-renewal of the license. However, the distinction between them illustrates that an examination of the circumstances of the case does not end with the legal classification of the infringed right, but rather with what lies behind it, including the nature of the economic injury to the licensee.
At this point, it is not superfluous to note that even if a decision not to renew a license is perceived, and rightly so, as less serious than a decision to revoke an existing license (see, for example: Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 3956/19 Al-Nal Import & Marketing inTax Appeal v. Ministry of Economy and Industry, paragraph 33 of the judge's judgment A. Grosskopf and the many references there (February 16, 2020)), the case law insisted that even a decision regarding the non-renewal of a license is not a trivial matter. This, inter alia, is in view of the license holder's reliance and his legitimate expectation that his license will be renewed. Therefore, many years ago, this Court held that, as a rule, "One may not refuse to renew the permit unless there is a special reason that justifies it." (High Court of Justice 171/78 I'll pay in an appeal Taxes v. Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, IsrSC 36 (3) 141, 148 (1982); See also: High Court of Justice 8082/15 35 Association for the Elderly v. Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services, paragraph 20 of the judge's judgment A. Fogelman (10.7.2016); Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 4501/09 State of Israel v. Amar, paragraph 37 of the judge's judgment Y. Danziger (16.3.2010)).
And in application to his case: even detached from the question of legal classification, the harm to which the appellant commits – her obligation to relinquish an exclusive agency, in her field of business, which she has established and nurtured for years, and which constitutes a significant part of her business activity – is a significant infringement, which required weighty reasons to justify it. However, like my colleagues, I too am of the opinion that there is no basis for determining that the decision that the appellant is attacking does not meet this requirement.
- The second comment I would like to make relates to the scope of the Director's discretion when rejecting an application for renewal of a license by virtue of Section 45 of the Licensing of Services and Professions in the Automotive Industry Law, 5776-2016 (hereinafter: the Licensing Law).
As my colleague noted, the judge D. Mintz, one of the arguments raised by the appellant is that the Section 45 The Licensing Law as a clause that gives the Director the authority to consider competition considerations when deciding whether to extend a license, but it does not establish an independent ground for non-renewal of a license. This, with this in mind In the section 10(A)(8) In the Licensing Law, the legislature established a specific reason for non-renewal of a license due to a violation of competition laws – a cause of action that applies where the Competition Commissioner determined that the license holder is a party to a restrictive arrangement or that he is a monopoly holder who abused his position in the market, according to Section 43(A)(1) or (5) 30The Economic Competition Law, 5748-1988 (hereinafter: Competition Law), or a financial sanction has been imposed on him under this law.