In conclusion, it was argued that the expert's determination regarding the entrepreneurial profit cannot in itself constitute a basis for denying the defendants' rights or obliging them to settle for a discriminatory consideration. At most, however, it can show that the project, as it was planned on the basis of erroneous data, does not achieve a proper economic balance between the rights of the apartment owners and the interests of the developer.
- Without derogating from their arguments regarding their refusal, the defendants further claim that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of the statutory attribution majority at the time the claim was filed, which is a material prerequisite. Thus, according to the defendants, a careful examination of the signatures of the agreement - as attached to the statement of claim - shows that the signatures of a significant number of apartment owners in the complex are missing (including in subplots 13,14,16,18,29 and 30, as detailed in paragraphs 87-89 of the statement of defense). It was argued that although the claim was detailed in the statement of defense, the plaintiffs chose not to file a reply and did not present a basis for contradicting the claim. According to the defendants, since, in accordance with the case law, the existence of a required majority cannot be inferred by hypothesis, the claim should be dismissed since the plaintiffs did not meet the threshold requirement in accordance with the Pinui-Binui Law.
- In light of all the above, the defendants claim that the lawsuit against them should be dismissed.
Discussion and Decision:
- Prior to my decision on the issues in dispute between the parties in this case, I find it necessary to preface a brief review as to the nature of Pinui-Binui projects, to which the project that is the subject of the proceeding belongs, as well as to the indications as determined in the case law with respect to projects of this type, as well as with regard to the question under what circumstances it will be possible to impose such a project on a tenant who refuses it.
- Urban renewal is included among the main goals of planning policy in Israel. This is in light of the trend to encourage the overcrowding of the majority of the population in cities and the desire to preserve open spaces, as well as to assist in the treatment and rehabilitation of deteriorating urban complexes, by promoting new high-density construction and allocating areas for public needs and urban infrastructure. This trend was expressed in TAMA 35 and also in the explanatory notes to the Evacuation and Construction (Compensation) Bill, 5765-2005 (Knesset Bill 88,198). See also: Civil Appeal 3511/13 Regina Schwartzberger v. Shalom Marin, at paragraph 14 (July 24,2014) (hereinafter: "the Schwarzberger case") and also High Court of Justice 8958/21 The Institute for Structural Reforms Ltd. the Israeli Knesset, at paragraph 3 (March 23,2025) (hereinafter: "the Reform Institute case")).
In recent years, urban renewal has been promoted in two tracks, including similarities - demolition and reconstruction of condominiums in accordance with the provisions of TAMA 38 and evacuation-reconstruction in accordance with the provisions of the Pinui-Binui Law. In both types of projects, in general, as part of the transaction, the owner of rights in the complex - which is declared an urban renewal complex or complies with the provisions of TAMA 38 - transfers his rights to the developer, who in turn demolishes the building in the complex and builds new buildings on a larger scale in its place. Normally, in return, the owners of the existing rights receive new, protected apartments, reinforced against earthquakes and including an addition of space.