Background
Yigal Mantin appealed a June 24, 2026 judgment of the Beersheba District Court, sitting as a Court for Administrative Affairs, which had rejected his petition to annul an April 23, 2025 decision of a special committee concerning public housing. The District Court made no costs order.
Mantin sought either a complete exemption from the security required for the appeal or a reduction to NIS 500. He asserted that his medical and financial circumstances were poor, that he owned no realizable assets, and that paying the prescribed security would impair his ability to meet basic living expenses and restrict his access to the courts. The Ministry did not respond; the second respondent opposed the application, arguing that Mantin supplied no supporting financial records, did not adequately address possible assistance from relatives, was represented by counsel, and had weak prospects on appeal. In a related interim ruling, the Supreme Court had temporarily barred Mantin’s eviction from the apartment pending further decision.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Moran Yahav held that Mantin had not established the evidentiary foundation required for either a complete exemption or a reduction on grounds of inability to pay. A party seeking such relief must cumulatively demonstrate financial incapacity through complete, current evidence and show genuine prospects of success, while also establishing an inability to raise the security with help from close associates. Mantin submitted only his affidavit: he omitted bank and credit-card statements, documentation of income, expenses, assets, and savings, information about other funding sources, evidence explaining how his legal representation was financed, and adequate support for his claim that relatives could not assist him.
The Registrar nevertheless reduced the security to NIS 1,000, without expressing any view on the appeal’s prospects. She relied on the nature of the public-housing proceeding, Mantin’s sworn assertions about his health and finances, and the Ministry’s failure to respond. She also clarified that the governing tariff was the amount prescribed for a Supreme Court appeal arising from an administrative petition concerning public housing, rather than the NIS 30,000 provision invoked by Mantin. The security was due by October 22, 2026; failure to deposit it could result in dismissal without another order. No costs were awarded.
Key Takeaways
- An affidavit alone ordinarily does not establish financial inability to deposit appellate security; applicants should provide current, comprehensive financial records.
- Applicants must also explain and substantiate why they cannot obtain assistance from relatives or others in their immediate circle.
- Even when the formal requirements for exemption are unmet, the court may reduce security in light of the proceeding’s subject matter, sworn hardship claims, and the opposing public authority’s failure to respond.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Israel’s Supreme Court balances access to appellate review in public-housing disputes against the requirement that appellants secure respondents’ potential costs. It also underscores that the applicable security schedule depends on the specific category of administrative appeal.
The ruling did not decide the merits of Mantin’s public-housing appeal or assess its likelihood of success. It addressed only the amount of security required for the appeal to proceed.