Background
The petition challenged Israel’s rules for approving the entry of goods into the Gaza Strip through Israeli companies. Under a September 29, 2025 decision, an applicant had to qualify as a “large supplier” or “large retailer” under section 2 of the Promotion of Competition in the Food and Pharmacy Industries Law, 2014, in addition to satisfying other requirements, including security criteria.
The Israel Farmers Federation petitioned the Director of the Customs Administration, the Competition Commissioner, and the Ministry of Defense’s Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories. It sought cancellation of the entire arrangement or, at minimum, removal of the “large supplier” or “large retailer” threshold. While the case was pending, the Tax Authority published a replacement arrangement on July 1, 2026 that no longer contained the disputed threshold. The Federation opposed striking the petition, raised procedural and substantive objections to the new arrangement, and alternatively requested costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court struck the petition because, in its existing form, it had exhausted itself. The principal relief sought—cancellation of the September 2025 arrangement and removal of the disputed Food Law eligibility threshold—had already been achieved through the replacement arrangement.
The Court declined to consider objections to the new arrangement because the Federation had not first pursued concrete and current administrative remedies concerning that arrangement. It expressly preserved all parties’ arguments on those issues, leaving them available for a properly presented future challenge. Considering the sequence of events that led in practice to revision of the challenged arrangement, the Court ordered the respondents to pay the Federation NIS 4,000 in costs.
Key Takeaways
- The petition was struck—not dismissed—after the challenged arrangement was replaced and the principal requested relief had already been obtained.
- The Court would not adjudicate new objections to the replacement arrangement without concrete, current exhaustion of administrative remedies.
- The parties’ arguments concerning the replacement arrangement were preserved, and the respondents were ordered to pay NIS 4,000 in costs.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes ending a petition because its requested relief has already been achieved from deciding the merits of either the original policy or its replacement. By striking the petition while preserving the parties’ arguments, the Court left open a future challenge to the new arrangement after the required administrative steps are taken.