Background
Three consolidated civil appeals arose from a March 29, 2022 judgment of the Haifa District Court in four related actions concerning compensation for expropriated land. The appeals involved several groups of claimants, including the Tarif and Amar expropriation claimants, and the State of Israel—Israel Land Authority.
Following a hearing on July 29, 2026, the parties agreed that compensation for Tarif claimants whose entitlement had been or would be established should be calculated under the rules adopted in CA 6744/20, State of Israel—Israel Land Authority v. Tabar, described by the Court as the consolidated procedural proceeding. The principal remaining dispute for that group concerned whether certain individual claimants had proved their entitlement to compensation.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court did not finally decide the merits of the appeals. It issued a procedural decision establishing a timetable for their possible consensual resolution and for adjudicating any disputes that remained. The State and the Tarif claimants were directed to seek a partial judgment for claimants whose entitlement was undisputed by August 16, 2026. They were also directed to confer, permit disputed claimants to submit supporting documents, and file by August 31 either an agreed request for judgment or separate submissions of no more than eight pages concerning unresolved claims. The Court stated that it might decide those disputes on the papers.
As to the State’s appeal, the Court recommended that the State abandon the issues still being pursued, including the amount of attorney’s fees payable to the claimants, and ordered it to respond by August 9. As to the Amar claimants, the Court recommended that they abandon their arguments concerning an alleged governmental promise and the extent of their interests in the expropriated property, accept compensation based on the District Court’s findings and the Tabar calculation principles, and respond by August 16. If they accepted, the parties were to submit an agreed request for judgment by August 31; if they declined, the Court would decide their appeal on the existing record without another hearing.
Key Takeaways
- The decision was an interim procedural order, not a final merits judgment in the consolidated appeals.
- Compensation for eligible Tarif claimants was to be calculated under the principles established in CA 6744/20, while disputed entitlement claims would be addressed through documents, negotiations, and potentially written adjudication.
- The Court encouraged both the State and the Amar claimants to narrow or discontinue remaining appellate issues and set firm deadlines for responses and proposed judgments.
Why It Matters
The decision shows the Supreme Court using a structured, claimant-by-claimant process to streamline complex expropriation litigation after the applicable compensation methodology had largely been settled elsewhere. It separates disputes over entitlement from the calculation of compensation and creates a route to partial judgments for undisputed claims.
Because the Court only recommended withdrawal of certain appellate arguments and reserved judgment if those recommendations were rejected, the order should not be read as resolving the governmental-promise, ownership-share, attorney-fee, or disputed-entitlement issues on their merits.