The record turned
Freedom-of-information and file-inspection tools used first, so the petition argues from the authority's own documents.
Administrative & judicial review
A public authority decided against you. The decision can be tested.
Administrative petitions and High Court of Justice proceedings in Israel: Aun & Co. challenges government and municipal decisions for individuals and organisations.
Administrative law is the discipline of testing power against its own rules. Decisions of ministries, municipalities, planning bodies and regulators are reviewable — before the administrative courts or, for matters within its original jurisdiction, the High Court of Justice — on grounds of authority, procedure, relevant considerations, proportionality and reasonableness. Deadlines are unforgiving and often shorter than parties assume. The firm acts for individuals, companies and organisations, including international bodies facing Israeli regulatory decisions.
The work spans
- Petitions to the High Court of Justice against government decisions
- Administrative petitions against ministries and municipalities
- Challenges to licensing, registration and permit refusals
- Hearings and written submissions inside the administrative process
- Interim orders freezing implementation pending review
- A licence, registration or permit was refused with reasoning that does not match the file.
- A municipal decision hit your business and the objection window is measured in days.
- You were never given a real hearing before a decision that assumes your guilt.
- A regulator applied a new policy to you retroactively and calls it discretion.
The administrative file is demanded and read before the petition is written — review is argued on the authority's own record, and the gap between what the file shows and what the decision states is usually the case. Grounds are then chosen for the forum: procedure and hearing defects for fast wins, proportionality and reasonableness where the merits must move. Exhaustion of internal remedies and the delay doctrine are managed from day one, because more petitions die on timing than on substance.
04 · What you get
Timing kept alive
Exhaustion, delay and response windows tracked as hard deadlines — the procedural traps that end petitions before merits.
Ground-forum fit
Each argument matched to what the reviewing court will actually act on, in the register that court expects.
The firm has acted for an international organisation whose registration application was denied by an Israeli ministry on grounds drawn from general policy rather than the applicant's own record — building the challenge on the hearing process, the evidentiary basis and proportionality.
Described in abbreviated, anonymised form to preserve client confidentiality.
What is the difference between an administrative petition and a High Court petition?
Jurisdiction. Matters assigned by statute to the administrative courts — much municipal, licensing and tender work — go there; decisions of the government and bodies outside that assignment go to the High Court of Justice sitting as first and last instance.
How long do I have to challenge an administrative decision in Israel?
Administrative petitions are generally subject to a 45-day limit, and the delay doctrine can bar even earlier filings if you sat on your rights. Treat the decision date as the start of a short, hard clock.
Can a court freeze a government decision while the case is heard?
Yes — interim orders preserving the status quo are available where the petition is serious, the harm irreversible and the balance of convenience favours waiting. In practice, the interim order fight often decides the petition's fate.