I would love to hear what your experience is?
Yossi: Wants to drink water, Tal Filter pours the candidate a glass of water and the candidate declares that this tender is invalid.
Adi: I want to give you a chance to introduce yourself.
Yossi: I've applied for 14 identical tenders for this position in the past, this tender is invalid like all the previous ones, I'm not given a real opportunity. Already in 1995 I won a tender for the position of deputy manager, a position that the municipality management canceled after I won, and after about two years the municipality renewed the position under its new name, the position of chief lifeguard. This whole tender is a show, if I'm a lieutenant colonel in the navy I have all the experience, abilities and professionalism that are required and beyond. Everyone here, including you (turning to Avi Zohar) a navy man, when I leave the committee, both you and Avi Peretz laugh. The director general told me that I don't meet the norms of a municipal manager, you all here don't meet the norms of managers in the municipality, if I don't comply. What's happening here is just a shame.
Adi: I really want to give you a chance to introduce yourself.
Yossi: There is no chance. This tender is invalid.
Adi: What beach are you on?
Yossi: I say again that the tender is invalid, he gets up and leaves the room."
Even if the applicant disagrees with the content of the transcript as it emerges from his testimony at the hearing, this does not change the main points that are not in dispute.
- In addition, the committee's chairwoman, Ms. Adi Tsabari, stated in the affidavit she submitted, "I did not know the applicant, and I never dealt with his case. When he entered the room, I introduced myself, told me that I was a new manager in the municipality, and asked him to introduce himself and tell about his professional experience. The applicant asked for a glass of water, and then claimed that the tender was invalid."
In its interrogation, the committee reiterated that it did not know about the director-general's statement from 2007 (transcript, p. 30, paras. 11-15, pp. 31, s. 18, pp. 32-34) "... I remember that you stormed into a storm and I really wanted you to understand who you were and that you introduce yourself and I came with a willing soul... The first second I asked you who you were and I would be very happy to get to know you because I am new to the municipality, so you had a hard time finding the words, you stopped for a moment and then I don't remember the words that were said. But they were said with a storm of emotions and a lot of arguments, and I asked again for a moment to stop, to get to know you, because I really want to know whether you met the criteria or not, because I really didn't know the story, but you didn't want to... The very fact that you left the room after less than two minutes, it was a storm, I really wanted to know who you were... I remember asking you who you were and very pleasant and I'm new to the municipality and I want to get to know you. You stopped for a moment, you wanted to drink water or something like that, and I told you, okay, now you can tell me who you are, and then you said things about the tender, I don't remember the words, there's a protocol, I certainly won't remember that thing. And I asked you again, you said the tender was invalid, and you stormed out of the room."
- The Applicant's interrogation shows that he was asked (transcript, pp. 22,7-10): "Do you have any evidence, letter, email, photograph, witness? That the Director General instructed Mrs. Sabari or any of the other members of the Committee or asked them not to elect you for the position"? To this the Applicant replied (transcript, pp. 22,36): "I don't, I don't have evidence, ma' "
- From the testimony of the committee chairman, it became clear that the applicant's claim before the committee about the director-general's statement from 2007 was not at all clear to the committee (transcript, p. 40, s. 3): "The committee did not know at all about what you were talking about." As emerges from the regional court file, only some of the committee members were familiar with the applicant. It is possible that any of them were exposed to the director-general's statement from 2007, but this question has no place in deciding on a request for temporary relief when it has not been proven who was exposed and on what occasion and what is the significance of this. There is also no room to clarify in the course of a hearing on a request for temporary relief whether each of the committee members knew about the statement individually, since it is a shortened proceeding with few witnesses that does not constitute a substitute for a main proceeding.
- The Applicant did not give the Committee an opportunity to examine his candidacy, since after he himself claimed at the beginning of his remarks before the Committee that the Committee was disqualified from examining A. Nainu, he immediately left the committee room. In this state of affairs, the Committee was not given the opportunity at all to discuss the Applicant's claim regarding disqualification, and then, if necessary, to examine the Applicant's suitability for the position (Transcript, pp. 42,10-14) "... If I go into detail, something that I will detail in my legal summaries, which says that the rule says that a candidate who is running, who has a claim against the validity of the tender, cannot both raise the claim in the tender and continue to participate in it. Rather, he should, this is a legal precedent, and he should raise the claim, but leave and not participate in it." The fact that the applicant believes that he has a claim regarding the validity of the tender does not mean that it is possible to suffice with a vague claim without detail, in relation to which of the committee members it is attributed, in which case the committee can decide this in an informed manner. Even if the committee members did not know, the question arises as to what weight does the bidder have when he informs them of a statement in relation to him and ostensibly thwarts it. In addition, even if it is proven that all the members of the committee had knowledge of the director-general's statement, the question is whether it comes within the scope of a preconceived opinion or a prejudice. One way or another, these are weighty questions that cannot be decided by temporary relief, and from this point of view, the decision of the Regional Court is correct, insofar as it is prima facie. There is no impediment to the fact that, in the framework of the main proceeding, no matter how one, the Applicant will bring additional evidence to prove his claims, and the Regional Court will rule on the factual and legal questions.
- Before concluding in the margins, it should be noted that it was indeed agreed that no claim of delay would be made against the Applicant when he agreed to delete the application and turn to mediation proceedings, and then requested to renew the discussion thereof. Without derogating from this agreement, the result obtained is a decision on temporary relief that is made about sixteen months after the decision regarding the applicant's failure to win the tender. The significance of this is the sterilization of the institution of a temporary relief, which is urgently requested and is supposed to be clarified quickly. This is all the more valid when it comes to a tender for filling a position, which affects third parties and creates ambiguity and uncertainty when a proceeding regarding the tender has been going on for such a long time.
- Finally - the application for leave to appeal is denied.
Granted today, September 18,2026, in the absence of the parties and will be sent to them.