Bara (National) 37592-09-26 Yossi Ilan – Municipality of Tel Aviv-Yafo

18 September 2026

Decision

Judge Ilan Sofer

1. Prior to an application for leave to appeal the decision of the Tel Aviv Regional Court (Judge Sima Kramer; Labor Dispute 43378-05-25) [Nevo] dated August 30,2026 (hereinafter - the Decision), the Applicant's request for temporary relief that would order the suspension of the results of internal tender proceedings No. 82/2025, (hereinafter - the Tender) for the position of Section Manager and Lifeguard Station in the Beaches Wing of Respondent 1 (hereinafter - the Municipality), and the suspension of the appointment of Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter - the Respondent) to the position.

Prima facie factual background

2. The Applicant has been employed as a lifeguard since 1993 in the Municipality's Beaches Department. The Applicant has competed in a number of tenders in the past and did not win them and has conducted several legal proceedings against the Municipality, one of which is a consolidated proceeding that is still pending (Labor Dispute 10612-09-22 [Nevo]).
3. On January 21,2025, the tender that is the subject of the application for the position of section manager and lifeguard station in the Beaches Division of the Municipality's Operations Division was published. The Applicant, together with four other candidates, including the Respondent, submitted their candidacy for the tender and were invited to the Examination Committee (hereinafter - the Committee) which was held on May 5,2025 to examine their suitability for the position.  One candidate withdrew his candidacy shortly after the committee convened.
4. The following members of the committee were present: Ms. Adi Tsabari - Deputy Director General of Planning, Organization and Information Systems at the Municipality, Adv. Rami Ben Gal - Chairman of the Municipality Employees Organization (representative of the Workers' Union), Ms. Inbar Sarfer Wasserholtz - Deputy Chair of the Workers' Organization (representative of the Workers' Union), Mr. Tal Filter - Deputy Director of the Beaches and Chief Lifeguard Department (committee member), Mr. Avi Zohar (public representative) and Mr. Atef Hiradlin - Director of the National Bathing Sites Division of the Ministry of the Interior (representative of the Ministry of Interior).
5. The Applicant, who was the first candidate to appear before the Committee, refused to present himself, claimed, inter alia, that the tender was invalid and left the committee room. After the committee members examined the other candidates, the Respondent was selected as the most suitable candidate to fill the position and won the tender.  On May 6,2025, the Municipality informed the Applicant that he had not been elected to the position.  In his letter dated May 7,2025 to the Mayor, the Applicant demanded that the results of the tender be canceled due to its invalidity.
6. On May 18,2025, the Applicant submitted to the Regional Court a request for temporary relief ordering a delay and suspension of the results of the tender proceedings and a freeze on the Respondent's appointment to the position. The Applicant claimed, inter alia, that the tender had a serious administrative defect that concerned his priori disqualification from managerial positions.  According to him, this disqualification stems from a statement by the Municipality's Director General from 2007, according to which the Applicant does not comply with the norms required of managers in the Municipality.
7. In a decision dated May 26,2025, which was given at the end of the hearing, the Regional Court ruled that the parties had agreed to seek mediation with respect to all the pending proceedings between them. As a result, the request for temporary relief was deleted by consent without an order for costs, while preserving the applicant's right to refile a request or claim within 14 days of the end of the mediation, without the municipality claiming a delay due to the passage of time.
8. On November 9,2025, the Applicant filed a request for an extension of the time for filing a request for temporary relief, which was deleted, and to consider the deleted application as valid. The parties' request to consolidate the proceeding with additional proceedings was denied.
9. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916On June 25,2026, a hearing was held on a request for temporary relief, in which the applicant and the committee's chairwoman, Ms. Adi Tsabari, were questioned about their affidavits, and after the summaries were submitted, the Regional Court's decision was given.

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)Regional Court Decision

• In its decision, the Regional Court rejected the request for temporary relief. At the beginning of its ruling, the Regional Court addressed the Municipality's argument regarding the existence of a company estoppel, which is based on decisions in previous proceedings, including labor dispute 71645-12-25 [Nevo] and the judgment in the appeal to the National Court in Labor Appeal 21606-07-26 (hereinafter - the proceeding in the National Court) [Nevo], in which the Director-General's statement from 2007 that the applicant does not comply with the norms of a municipal manager was discussed. The Tribunal accepted the Applicant's position on this matter, and ruled that since the previous decisions were given in the framework of a proceeding for temporary relief only, they are prima facie and therefore do not create an act of the court or estoppel in the current proceeding.  However, the Regional Court clarified that the Applicant still has the burden of bringing prima facie evidence that the statement did indeed adversely affect the opinions of the committee members in the current tender.
• The Regional Court found that the Applicant did not meet this burden and did not present evidence of the effect of the statement on the members of the Committee. It was held that the Chairman of the Committee testified credibly and coherently that she did not know at all about the statement of the Director General from 2007, and that she approached the Applicant willingly and asked to get to know him and examine his candidacy. This testimony omitted the factual basis under the Applicant's argument that the statement of the Director General from 2007 had any effect on the members of the Committee.  The Regional Court further noted that even if it had been proven that the members of the Committee were familiar with the statement, this would not have been sufficient for the purpose of accepting the application, since the Applicant had to show how this was reflected in their decision and how they found relevance in the statement from 2007 to the tender in 2025.
• It was further determined that the applicant had failed himself when he refused to present his candidacy to the committee and left the meeting in protest. This conduct prevented the committee from being impressed by his qualifications directly, and therefore the fact that he was not elected cannot be viewed as a flaw in the committee's conduct. The Regional Court rejected the argument that the committee should have stopped the tender immediately upon raising its claims, and clarified that there was no impediment on the part of the applicant to cooperate with the proceeding under protest.
• As part of the examination of the balance of convenience, the Regional Court ruled that the Applicant's alleged damages to the impairment of his salary and the amount of his retirement pension are financial in nature and can be cured in future financial relief. On the other hand, the acceptance of the application and the delay in the appointment may severely harm the public interest and the preservation of human life on the beaches in the city of Tel Aviv-Jaffa.

Copied from NevoTherefore, it was held that the Applicant did not meet the burden of proving, even prima facie, the existence of a concrete defect in the tender.  His arguments remained subjective speculation, and that it was the Applicant's own conduct that thwarted the possibility of examining his candidacy on its merits.

• On this decision, dated August 30,2026, the application for leave to appeal was filed before me.

The Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant claims that there was a legal error in the decision of the Regional Court, which shifted the center of gravity from the question of the correctness and fairness of the administrative proceeding to the demand that he prove how the Director-General's determination actually influenced the thinking of the members of the tenders committee. According to him, he was placed with an erroneous evidentiary burden and it is impossible to prove that the Director-General's determination from 2007 was known to the members of the committee before it convened. The Applicant argues that the position of the Director General of the Municipality has substantial and decisive institutional weight in the selection, and therefore the Committee was obligated to examine its significance; The Regional Court's determination that he was the one who failed himself because he left the committee meeting and did not continue to participate in it under protest is erroneous.  According to him, in accordance with the ruling, a contestant who knows about a defect is prevented from holding him and waiting for the result, and he must raise the defect in real time and before the committee makes a decision.  According to him, the rule that requires raising a defect before a decision should not be turned into an inverse rule, according to which his refusal to continue participating as if nothing had happened severs the causal link.

16. According to the Applicant, there is a material difference between the technical possibility of filling out a candidacy form and the right to an equal opportunity to win the tender without the influence of the determination of the most senior managerial level. If the tenders committee had believed that the CEO's determination was irrelevant because of these decisions or the passage of time, it should have clarified this in real time, and it did not do so.
17. The Applicant further argues that the Tribunal did not examine his claim regarding the prior knowledge of other committee members other than the committee chairman, including Rami Ben-Gal, Avi Zohar and Tal Filter. The committee chairman's statement that she did not know about the statement prior does not negate the knowledge of the other members, and in any event, from the moment the applicant presented the matter to them, all the committee members knew about them before their decision was made.
18. With regard to the balance of comfort, the Applicant argues that there was an error in adopting the Respondents' argument that the provision of relief would harm the preservation of human life on the beaches of the city of Tel Aviv.  According to him, the position of manager of a bathing section is not a position required in the normative structure of the rescue system, is not one of the roles prescribed for second-generation lifeguards in the collective agreement, and is expected to disappear upon the termination of the work of first-generation lifeguards.  On the other hand, due weight was not given to the fact that this was his last opportunity to win the position before his retirement, which would have a real impact on his salary and pension after he did not win any managerial position during his long years of work.
19. The Applicant further argues that the judgment of the National Court does not establish a cause of action, since this is a separate tender (82/2025), for a different position, before a different examination committee and at a different date, which gave rise to a concrete and separate administrative decision.  The National Court explicitly ruled that the previous decisions in which the significance of the Director-General's statement was discussed were given in the framework of requests for temporary relief and not in a main case.  Since decisions in interim proceedings are prima facie by their very nature, it was expressly determined that "they do not have the power to establish a company estoppel".  In addition, the Applicant argues that there is a substantial procedural difference on the issue of the absence of filing a statement of claim.  While in Tender 333/2025 an explicit date was set for the submission of a statement of claim until January 1,2026, and the Applicant did not submit it, and on this the decision of the National Ink Tribunal was based, the Regional Court during the hearing of June 25,2026 left the question of filing the statement of claim for regularization in its decision, and the Applicant was not in a situation where he was not upholding a judicial decision.

Discussion and Decision

20. After reviewing the application for leave to appeal and the file of the Regional Court, I have reached the conclusion that the application for leave to appeal should be rejected even without requiring the municipality's response.

The principle of equality in a tender

21. The principle of equality applies to a tender for filling a position and to the discretion of the tenders committee in selecting a candidate for a vacant position. This principle obligates the committee members to examine each candidacy with an open heart and a willing soul.  The committee members must formulate their decision only after giving each candidate an equal opportunity to present his arguments, without coming with a closed position or a pre-formulated opinion.  A committee member who makes a decision based on prejudice and locking his line of thought, violates his public position and the duty of fairness imposed on him (High Court of Justice 3751/03 Yossi Ilan v.  Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality, [Nevo] (2004)).
22. In addition, committee members must completely refrain from cooperating with a "tailor-made tender" or a "sold tender" whose results have been marked in advance. This obligation gives rise to the prohibition on conflict of interest and bias, which disqualify the membership of those suspected of formulating a decisive and final position prematurely.  Preventing these situations is essential in order to ensure the integrity of character and the public's confidence in the election process (High Court of Justice 1356/96 Ben David v.  Prime Minister, IsrSC 50(1) 661,666 (1996)).

00Prejudice and Prejudice

23. 0The aforementioned legal rule does not prevent a member of the tenders committee from holding his own opinions or impressions. The members of the committee are not "angels from heaven", and they are often familiar with the various candidates from the joint work environment.  Therefore, the existence of an opinion or prior impression, whether positive or negative, is completely natural (High Court of Justice 322/77 Hadar v.  Ben Ari, IsrSC 31 (3) 762 (1977)).

Accordingly, the mere existence of prior acquaintance or prior evaluation of any of the candidates does not lead to the disqualification of the tender.  As long as it has not been proven that extraneous considerations tipped the scales, prior acquaintance alone does not disqualify a committee member from sitting in the courtroom.