Court ruling10/17/2026

Supreme Court Orders Partial Disclosure of Information on Absentees’ Property

The Supreme Court of Israel partially granted Ram Cohen’s appeal seeking information about the administration of absentees’ property in Jerusalem. The Court ordered the disclosure of some of the information but did not require the state to manually locate all the requested information.

Key facts

•Case: AdmA 6616/21
•Court: Supreme Court of Israel sitting as the Court of Appeals for Administrative Affairs
•Judgment: July 13, 2023
•Disclosure of information: By September 15, 2023
•Costs awarded to the appellant: 15,000 shekels
•Law: Freedom of Information Law, 5758–1998

What the Petitioner Requested

In November 2019, Ram Cohen submitted a request to the Custodian of Absentees’ Property under the Freedom of Information Law, 5758–1998. Among other things, he requested data on the extent of such property within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries, including East Jerusalem; on properties that had been released and the reasons for their release; and on the sale of properties to the Development Authority and other entities from 2009 to 2019. The official responsible for implementing the Freedom of Information Law at the Ministry of Finance denied the request, and the Jerusalem District Court, sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs, declined to intervene in that decision.

Why the Authorities Refused

The authorities relied on Sections 8(1) and 8(3) of the Freedom of Information Law: processing the request would have required an unreasonable allocation of resources, and some of the information could not be located or was not held by the respondents. The state later also argued that disclosure could harm Israel’s foreign relations under Section 9(a)(1) of the Law. In the Supreme Court, it emerged that there was no complete database of the properties organized by geographic area, nor any centralized record of the properties sold, and that manually reviewing numerous files would fall to a department with only three employees.

What Information Must Be Disclosed

Following the Court’s comments, the respondents agreed to provide more information than they had initially offered. The Supreme Court ordered the disclosure of the number of properties released in Jerusalem from 2013 to 2019, the principal reasons for their release, and the total extent of the properties restored in kind during that period. The Court also recorded the state’s statement that, with respect to all properties released from 2010 to 2019, the country of absentee status was Jordan. It was determined that the information would be provided by September 15, 2023.

The Supreme Court’s Position

The Court noted that, as a rule, public information should be accessible and that refusing to disclose it is an exception that must be justified by the party relying on it. Nevertheless, the Court did not grant the original request in full because of the practical difficulty of locating historical information and the resources required to do so. The justices criticized the lack of orderly and accessible records, noting that the authorities should improve data retention, administrative “memory,” oversight, and transparency.

Costs and Future Requests

The respondents will pay the appellant legal costs of 15,000 shekels and reimburse the amounts he was ordered to pay in the District Court, insofar as they were paid. The Court noted that Ram Cohen, like any other interested citizen, may submit new requests in the future under the Freedom of Information Law, taking into account the materials received and the current circumstances. The Court expressed no position regarding information that was not expressly included in the original request.

What this means for you

A citizen requesting information from the state may rely on the presumption in favor of disclosure, but an authority may limit disclosure if locating the information objectively requires unreasonable resources or if the information is not in its possession. Nevertheless, the absence of readily accessible records may itself be subject to judicial criticism, and partial disclosure may be ordered even when the request cannot be fulfilled in full.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings