11.01 The attachment of outdoor areas in the front and/or façade facing a test street on the ground floor will not be approved.
- It should be emphasized that the Ramat Gan Local Committee does not intervene in property disputes.
At the same time, I will respond to the honorable court's question, that in an examination I conducted in the municipality's "complete" system and the documents contained therein, I found that the committee determined in its decision of April 5, 2014 to approve the application "without fences for the front lines of the building lines for Renanim Street and French People's Boulevard". In addition, in the building permit issued on April 30, 2018, there are no fences facing the street facades that delimit the building's yard, but only low fences for landscaping. It also appears that in the development plan for the permit granted, private courtyards in the front are not marked in the front spaces, while the courtyards facing the rear are clearly marked as a 'private yard'."
- The public servant's certificate was forwarded to the plaintiff for review and in order for her to inform her of her position regarding the continuation of the proceeding. Subsequently, the plaintiff announced on November 19, 2023 that she was insisting on her claim and the remedies claimed under it (while raising arguments regarding the contents of the public servant's certificate). The plaintiff further argued that according to her approach, there is no reason to add the other apartment owners. This is because, according to her claim in the statement of defense on behalf of the defendant, this last claim is that the apartment owners agreed in advance to any arrangement that the defendant would reach with the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff petitioned to advance the proceeding by way of submitting affidavits of the main witness.
- On February 28, 2024, I issued my decision in which I ordered that all the apartment owners in the condominium, including both the owners of the new apartments and the owners of the old apartments, should be added to the statement of claim. This is because these are also the owners of the proprietary right that the plaintiff wishes to possess for herself within the scope of the enforcement remedy. It was emphasized that although the plaintiff claims that the owners of the old apartments signed a document in which she is granted rights, it was determined that this does not negate their right to day in court, in which they will be able to give their opinion, inter alia, on the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested by her against them, even though they signed the said document. I further held that even if there is substance to the plaintiff's claim and accordingly the defendant is the one who is responsible for the fact that the yard was not attached to her apartment, this does not negate the duty of the plaintiff - who seeks relief relating to the property rights of the other apartment owners - to add the other apartment owners against whose proprietary rights the remedy claimed in the legal proceeding is directed.
In light of all the above, it was determined that the plaintiff would file an amended statement of claim to which all the apartment owners would be added as defendants.
- On March 24, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim. The defendant filed an amended statement of defense to the amended statement of claim, and in addition, a number of defendants filed statements of defense (as detailed in paragraph 3 above of the judgment).
- In the proceeding, an evidentiary hearing was held on January 1, 2026, in which Mr . Oren Arad (who signed the certificate of public servant on behalf of the Ramat Gan Municipality), the plaintiff and an appraiser on its behalf - Mr. Amit Ziv, and Mr. Zvika Rubinstein on behalf of the defendant (hereinafter: "Rubinstein").
- At the end of the evidentiary hearing, attempts were made to end the proceedings by way of a compromise, and an additional hearing was even scheduled for this purpose, but, unfortunately, the attempts were fruitless, and therefore, a decision was made regarding the submission of the parties' summaries.
The parties' arguments;