Background
Kamisa Winery Ltd. filed a claim with the Compensation Fund on July 23, 2025, seeking compensation for indirect wartime losses. After the statutory period for a decision allegedly expired, the winery asked the High Court of Justice to order the Israel Tax Authority to decide the claim and to suspend tax collection in the meantime, arguing that its tax liabilities could be offset against the compensation sought.
The winery had previously petitioned the Haifa District Court sitting as a Court for Administrative Affairs. It withdrew that petition after the court indicated that it apparently lacked jurisdiction and that the winery should proceed before the appellate body established under the Property Tax and Compensation Fund Law, with any subsequent challenge brought by administrative appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the winery contended that no such challenge was possible without an express agency decision and that a High Court petition was therefore its only available route.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court summarily dismissed the petition because an adequate alternative remedy existed. Justice David Mintz, writing for the Court, explained that the winery had not identified which compensation regime governed its claim. Under either potentially applicable regime, however, the prescribed route did not begin with a petition to the High Court: the ordinary regulations required an initial application to an appeals committee, while the temporary “Swords of Iron” regulations required an initial objection to the designated director.
The Court noted the winery’s inconsistent positions that, on the one hand, there was no decision capable of review and, on the other, the agency’s failure to respond meant that the claim had been accepted under section 38kb of the statute. The Court expressly declined to decide the legal effect of the agency’s silence, holding only that the winery had an alternative procedural avenue in any event. Dismissal was independently warranted for failure to exhaust remedies because the winery supplied no documentation supporting its assertion that it had repeatedly contacted the Tax Authority for a decision.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant seeking indirect war-damage compensation must use the objection or appeal mechanism prescribed by the governing compensation regime before petitioning the High Court.
- Agency silence does not, by itself, permit a claimant to bypass available statutory review procedures; the Court left open whether silence amounted to approval, denial, or another reviewable agency action.
- A party asserting exhaustion must provide evidence of its communications with the agency; unsupported claims of repeated inquiries are insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the High Court’s role as a forum of last resort when specialized tax and compensation procedures are available. Even substantial delay in deciding a wartime-loss claim will not ordinarily justify bypassing those procedures.
The ruling also preserves, rather than resolves, an important question concerning the legal consequence of the Tax Authority’s failure to decide a compensation claim within the applicable period. Future claimants must raise that issue through the correct statutory channel and document their efforts to obtain agency action.