Against this background, the petitioners and the Attorney General argue that the balancing point underlying the Levin opinion has changed, and that the damage expected today from the closure of Army Radio is so severe that the decision to do so requires only primary legislation.
I cannot accept this argument.
A significant part of the petitioners' and the Attorney General's arguments regarding the changes that took place in the communications market related, when they were heard, to pieces of legislation that were in the legislative process and did not mature into a binding law. However, the established rule is that a pending bill does not have a binding normative status, and the courts must rule only in accordance with the existing and valid law at the time of the decision, while avoiding reliance on future legislative initiatives that have not yet matured (High Court of Justice 3872/93 Mitral Ltd. v. The Prime Minister and Minister of Religious AffairsIsrSC 47(5) 485,496-497 (1993); See also: High Court of Justice 11013/05 Dahan v. Minister of the Interior, paragraph 8 of the judge's opinion A. Fogelman [Nevo] (1.3.2021); Additional Criminal Hearing 1062/21 Urich v. State of Israel, paragraph 42 of the President's judgment A. Hayut [Nevo] (11.1.2022); For exceptions to this rule, see: Yosef: "To her and a thorn in her: the event The normative of legislative initiatives" Law Studies from 253 (2017)). It should be emphasized that although in the meantime the Communications Law passed its second and third readings (after omitting parts of it and making changes to its wording), the decision to close the station was made at a time when this law was still in the legislative stages, and it has already been determined in our case law that the validity of an administrative decision must be examined against the background of the factual and normative basis that prevailed at the time it was adopted (see, for example: Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 3293/23 Ministry of National Security v. Sarsour, paragraph 92 of the judge's judgment A. Stein [Nevo] (13.10.2024); High Court of Justice 8371/09 Doron v. Minister of the Interior, paragraph 23 of the judge's judgment A. Fogelman [Nevo] (July 7,2010)). Therefore, in any event, the late enactment of the Communications Law - which was not yet a binding law at the time the decision to close the station was made - does not affect the validity of that decision or the question of whether it was appropriate to anchor it in primary legislation.