Background
The Movement for Freedom of Information submitted a request to the Ministry of Defense under Israel’s Freedom of Information Law, 5758-1998. After the statutory response period expired and further inquiries produced no answer, the Movement filed an administrative petition in the Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court on December 14, 2025.
The District Court dismissed the petition by agreement on January 7, 2026, after the Ministry undertook to answer the request by March 1. The Ministry did not provide the information until May 18, more than two months after the agreed deadline. Nevertheless, the District Court declined to award the Movement costs and later denied reconsideration.
The Movement initially sought leave to appeal the costs rulings. After the Ministry observed that the costs decision appeared to form part of the judgment and was therefore appealable as of right, the proceeding was reclassified as an appeal. The Ministry left the merits of the costs question to the Supreme Court’s discretion.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, writing for the Court, explained that exceptional appellate intervention in costs is justified when an applicant must bring a well-founded Freedom of Information petition because the authority failed to respond, yet would otherwise bear the resulting financial loss merely because an answer was eventually supplied after litigation began.
That principle applied with particular force because the petition had been dismissed in reliance on the Ministry’s express undertaking to respond within two months, and the Ministry failed to honor that undertaking. The Court ordered the Ministry to pay NIS 6,500 for the Movement’s legal fees and costs in both the District Court and the Supreme Court.
In fixing the amount, the Court considered the Ministry’s conduct and the prolonged delay. It also gave some weight to the diversion of attention required by Operation “Lion’s Roar” and to the Movement’s failure to support its claimed expenses with invoices or other relevant documentation.
Key Takeaways
- An authority’s eventual response does not ordinarily justify leaving a Freedom of Information applicant out of pocket when litigation was necessary to obtain that response.
- Failure to meet a response deadline expressly undertaken in court strengthens the case for awarding costs.
- A costs award may be reduced when part of the delay is reasonably explained or the applicant does not document the amount of its expenses.
Why It Matters
The ruling reinforces the practical enforcement mechanism behind Israel’s Freedom of Information Law: public authorities may face costs when their failure to answer on time forces requesters to litigate, even if the requested information is ultimately disclosed and the underlying petition is dismissed.
It also signals that courts will scrutinize compliance with undertakings that induce dismissal of administrative proceedings, while retaining discretion to account for operational circumstances and the quality of the applicant’s evidence concerning costs.