It is not at all possible to understand that the Ministry of Justice will approve the request after the designation is changed.
This should already be very clear to the Bat Yam Municipality, after the petition was filed by the Amarta company, in which it was clarified in the Ministry of Interior's response that when an application for work on the land is rejected due to planning impediments, a change in the designation of the land years later will not lead to the approval of the engagement in a tender that did not correspond to the planning situation on the land at the time of its existence, after clear clarifications that were conveyed to the municipality in the framework of the response letter regarding Suprematist from 2017."
- As a result, the company contacted the municipality on February 21,2021 in a letter complaining about the concealment of misleading information and misrepresentations, and accordingly for the breach of the agreement (see P/36).
- The Municipality responded to this letter in a letter dated March 2,2021 (see P/37), which was written by the Municipality's legal advisor, in which it rejected the Company's claims. According to its position, the Municipality became aware of the position of the Minister of the Interior only days earlier, when it received his letter of February 18,2021, which it attached to its letter (see P/38) - in which it stated that the Minister of the Interior would not be given approval for the transaction.
- The Ministry of Interior's letter to the Municipality, dated February 18,2021, follows the Municipality's request to receive approval in principle for the renewal of the engagement with the company (pre-ordering). In this letter, it was emphasized that, as in previous applications, the requested approval will not be granted, and that the entire municipality must publish tenders that match the plan that began, and that if it wishes to make use of its land in a way that is different from the plan, it must first make the planning changes and only then publish a tender.
- As a result, on March 15,2021, the company sent a letter to the municipality accusing the municipality of deception and breach of the agreement and acceded to the municipality's request to hold a meeting with the municipality's officials, emphasizing that as far as it was concerned, it would seek to discuss the outline for the payment of compensation.
- Subsequently, on June 7,2021, the company sent a letter to the municipality, demanding the return of the usage fees it had paid while maintaining its rights. The municipality ignored the company's requests for more than two months. (See P/40)
- On August 11,2021, the Municipality's legal advisor stated in an email that the Municipality wanted to return the money, but demanded that the company sign an affidavit canceling the transaction. (See P/41)
On September 12,2021, a telephone conversation was held between the company's attorney and the municipality's legal advisor, and it was agreed to move forward with the refund of the usage fees.