In the dispute between the parties regarding the municipality's policy, I find it acceptable to accept the defendant's arguments. This is because, as will be detailed below, the municipality's policy is supported by the direct testimonies, including in particular the testimony of Mr. Oren Arad, who submitted a certificate of a public servant on behalf of the municipality, but in addition, it is reflected and in practice runs as a "thread" in the conduct, the sequence of events and in the documents that were submitted.
- Thus and first, as detailed above in paragraph 14 of the judgment, on November 5, 2023, a public servant's certificate was submitted to the court file on behalf of the Ramat Gan Municipality, signed by Mr. Oren Arad, Director of the Licensing Department in the Ramat Gan Municipality. In the framework of the public servant's certificate, it was explicitly clarified that:
"2. The policy of the Ramat Gan Local Committee is not to approve the attachment of courtyards to the front. This policy was established and published in the Spatial Guidelines in Chapter 3, Section 11.01 (Old Version):
11.01 The attachment of outdoor areas in the front space and/or in the façade facing a test street on the ground floor will not be approved."
As for the aforementioned policy, Mr. Arad added and testified during his interrogation in the preceding hearing that: "As far as I know, the first policy that addressed the issue we are talking about is from 2016 in the form of the spatial guidelines that were published at the time." (His testimony on page 27, lines 18-19). The witness also testified that he was able to present the policy he testified about for 2016 (his testimony on page 26, lines 24-26).
This witness further testified, in the framework of the public servant's certificate, that support for this policy of the municipality and the fact that the defendant had applied for the courtyards, but it was refused, can be found in the local committee's decision of April 5, 2014 (which was attached to the public servant's certificate), in which the committee decided to approve the application: "No fences for the front building lines of Renanim Street and French People's Boulevard" (see his testimony on page 24, lines 8-13). At the same time, it should be noted that the witness emphasized that this is the only documentation he found, which indicates that the defendant approached the municipality in the framework of which the yard was requested. (I will note that similarly, Rubinstein testified, on behalf of the defendant on page 76, lines 25-28, that the significance deriving from the decision that there would be no wall in the direction of the French People's Avenue is that gardens would not be attached in that direction.)