Background
The petitioner, an anonymous individual (“Ploni”), applied to the Threatened Persons Committee — a body operating within the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) — for a permit to reside within the State of Israel. The Committee denied his application on the ground that he had not submitted required supplementary documentation. On August 10, 2025, the petitioner filed an administrative petition before the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Administrative Affairs Court (עת”מ 22661-08-25), challenging that denial.
On September 16, 2025, the lower court (Judge H. Ovadia) dismissed the petition, affirming the Committee’s factual finding that the petitioner had failed to complete the required supplementary materials before the permit decision was made. A request for reconsideration filed on September 18, 2025 was rejected the same day, the court finding no factual or legal error in its judgment. No appeal was filed against that judgment.
Eight months later, on May 20, 2026, the petitioner returned to the lower court in the same closed case file and sought an interim injunction prohibiting his removal from Israeli territory. The lower court rejected the application on the same day, stating: “The petition was dismissed. The case is closed. There is no basis for granting an interim injunction in this state of affairs, if for no other reason than this alone.” On May 28, 2026, the petitioner filed the present proceeding before the Supreme Court, simultaneously seeking a temporary stay against removal, along with exemptions from court fees and a security deposit.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Kasher first addressed the proper classification of the proceeding. Because the lower court’s May 20, 2026 decision did not resolve any substantive dispute but merely noted the case was closed and declined to act, it constitutes an “other decision” (החלטה אחרת) rather than a judgment on the merits. Under Section 12(b)(2) of the Administrative Courts Law, 5760-2000, such decisions may be appealed only with leave. The court accordingly reclassified the proceeding from an appeal as of right to a leave-to-appeal application.
On the merits of the leave application, Justice Kasher denied it outright. The proceeding targeted a decision issued in an already-closed case, eight months after a final judgment that the petitioner had never appealed. The lower court’s May 20 decision said nothing more than that the file was closed; the petitioner’s arguments, however, were substantively directed at the original September 2025 judgment. Permitting such an appeal would effectively allow a collateral attack on a final, unappealed judgment — an approach the court found wholly without basis.
The court declined to award costs because no response to the merits had been requested, but issued a clear warning: this is not the first time the Supreme Court has encountered the practice of filing new interim-injunction applications in closed cases long after final judgments dismissing original petitions. Citing two recent precedents — בר”מ 78155-03-26 (June 7, 2026) and בר”מ 81226-02-26 (March 17, 2026) — the court described this as a “reprehensible practice that would do well to disappear,” and expressly reserved the imposition of costs in favor of the state treasury in any similar future cases.
Key Takeaways
- A lower-court decision that merely notes a case is closed and declines to issue interim relief is an “other decision” under Section 12(b)(2) of the Administrative Courts Law, appealable only with leave — not as of right.
- Filing a new application for interim relief in a closed administrative case, months after a final unappealed judgment, in order to relitigate the original merits constitutes an abuse of process that warrants summary dismissal.
- The Supreme Court put future litigants and counsel on notice that repeat use of this procedural tactic will result in cost sanctions in favor of the state treasury.
- The Threatened Persons Committee’s finding that an applicant failed to submit required supplementary documentation is a factual determination that will not be disturbed absent a timely, properly filed appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the finality of administrative court judgments in the sensitive context of COGAT stay-permit proceedings, where applicants frequently face removal and strong incentives to seek emergency relief through any available procedural avenue. By firmly reclassifying improperly styled appeals and condemning the practice of reopening closed files, the Supreme Court signals that procedural creativity cannot substitute for timely appellate review on the merits.
The ruling also has practical implications for attorneys representing individuals before the Threatened Persons Committee: failure to appeal an adverse judgment within the ordinary appellate window will be treated as a forfeiture, and subsequent attempts to obtain interim relief through a closed case file will be dismissed — and may in the future attract cost awards against the petitioner or counsel.