Real estate9/8/2026

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Concerning Amidar Real Estate Tender

The Supreme Court of Israel refused to recognize Abd al-Fattah Namarneh as the winner of a tender for an Israel Land Authority property managed by Amidar. The second-place bidder sought to be declared the winner 51 days after the prescribed deadline.

Key facts

•Case: Administrative Appeal 2550/23
•Court: Supreme Court of Israel
•Decision: March 30, 2023
•Delay in applying: 51 days
•Appellant’s bid: 390,000 shekels
•Deadline under Section 19 of the tender: 90 days

The Dispute Over the Property Purchase

The appellant’s mother and brother reside in a property owned by the Israel Land Authority and managed by Amidar; the mother holds protected tenancy rights. In the tender, which closed on August 1, 2022, bids of 855,000, 390,000 and 370,000 shekels were submitted. Namarneh’s bid of 390,000 shekels placed second.

The Missed Deadline

Section 19 of the tender terms allowed the second-place bidder to claim the award if the transaction with the original winner was canceled. To do so, the bidder was required to apply to Amidar in writing within 90 days after the original winner was announced. Namarneh was required to do so by November 1, 2022, but applied only on December 22, 2022; on January 4, 2023, the first bidder’s award was canceled, and on January 29, 2023, a new tender was published.

Why the Court Did Not Intervene

The Supreme Court held that strict adherence to tender terms upholds equality among participants, fairness, certainty and the stability of tender committee decisions. The Court expressed serious doubt as to whether the committee was authorized at all to consider a late application; even if such authority existed, the refusal was based on relevant considerations. The Court for Administrative Affairs does not substitute its judgment for that of the tender committee and intervenes only when the decision is unlawful or afflicted by extreme unreasonableness.

Outcome of the Proceeding

The appeal and the request to prohibit the opening of bids or the announcement of the winner in the new tender were denied. The Supreme Court did not award legal costs because it had not requested responses from the respondents and considered the proceeding under an expedited procedural format. Previously, the District Court had ordered the appellant to pay each of the two respondents costs of 5,000 shekels.

What this means for you

A participant in a public tender must independently monitor all deadlines and mechanisms established in its terms, even if the tender administrator does not send a separate reminder. A delay may deprive the participant of the opportunity to take the original winner’s place, even when the latter’s award is subsequently canceled.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings