From the general to the individual
- I did not find that in the circumstances of the case there is justification for deviating from this rule. Whereas, in essence, the decision of the Regional Court is based on its direct and prima facie impression of the evidence and testimonies before it, which led it to the conclusion that the conditions justifying the granting of interim relief were not fulfilled in the absence of sufficient evidence for the existence of a prima facie cause of action and for the necessity of the temporary relief for the realization of the purpose.
- With regard to the balance of convenience, the Regional Court explained its decision and explained that the Applicant's damages are monetary and can be cured, whereas the granting of temporary relief would harm the public interest and the preservation of human life in view of the nature of the job. In addition, the Applicant did not offer relief that would be less harmful to the Respondent. In this context, I am unable to accept the Applicant's argument in connection with the unnecessity of the position when no evidence to that effect was brought in this proceeding.
- The Regional Court discussed the Applicant's claim that the tender is invalid due to a statement by the Director General from 2007 that according to the Applicant was known to the members of the committee prior to its meeting or from him at the time of its convening, and which negatively affected the opinions of the committee members in the current tender.
The Regional Court ruled that the Applicant did not prove, even prima facie, the existence of a concrete material defect in the tender process, in view of his impression of the credibility of the testimony of the Committee Chairman, according to which she did not know about the CEO's statement from 2007. In addition, it was held that even if he had proved that the committee members were familiar with the statement, he should have shown how this was reflected in the committee's decision.
- As stated, prejudice leads to the disqualification of a member of the tenders committee because it testifies to a "locked opinion" that cannot be changed, as opposed to a preconceived opinion. However, the applicant did not prove even prima facie that the committee members had a prejudice about him that led to the disqualification of the tender. The CEO, whose statement from 2007 was claimed to have created a prejudice among the members of the examination committee, was not a member of the examination committee, and no opinion, instruction or recommendation was submitted to the committee on his behalf. Let us turn where to examine what the Regional Court based on in its decision.
- From the minutes of the hearing before the Examination Committee, it appears that the Applicant himself informed the members of the Committee of the statement from 2007, while claiming that the tender was invalid:
"Adi: Very pleasant. New to the municipality, I believe that the rest of the attendees are familiar with you.