Demolition order from 2006 not implemented, complex expanded: High Court rejects petition

Almost 20 years after a demolition order was issued against one of the complexes, and with inspections last year revealing that the site had actually expanded, the High Court rejected a petition demanding the state take action against five illegal vehicle scrapyards in western Binyamin.

The judges determined that since the authorities have presented a series of enforcement actions taken in recent years, there is no cause at this stage for judicial intervention in their discretion.

The petition, filed by the Regavim movement, concerned five scrapyards operating in Area C near Road 4460, between the villages of Qibya and Ni'lin. Regavim demanded that the Minister of Defense, the Central Command Chief, the Civil Administration, and the police take enforcement measures and open a criminal investigation into alleged offenses at the site.

The most striking fact emerging from the verdict concerns one scrapyard that has been in enforcement proceedings for nearly two decades. The state informed the court that proceedings against an adjacent garage have been ongoing since 2006, with a demolition order issued that December.

Despite this, an inspection in April 2025 found that the garage had not only not been evacuated but had expanded, with two additional buildings, flooring, fencing, and a scrap yard added. Subsequent steps included granting the right to object, rejecting the objection, and granting extensions before enforcement.

In April 2026, a tour of two other lots resulted in orders to remove scrap and stop work on new structures. In June, the Subcommittee for Supervision decided to issue demolition orders for the structures.

Regavim argued that the scrapyards cause severe environmental damage, with oils and pollutants seeping into the soil and groundwater. They also alleged the sites are used to dismantle stolen vehicles and trade in spare parts.

It was further claimed that some vehicles are returned to the road as "meshtubot" (unroadworthy vehicles), creating a security risk as they are not in official registries and could be used by terrorists. The court presented these as the petitioner's claims rather than factual findings.

Despite this, the High Court determined there is no justification to intervene. Justice Gila Canfy-Steinitz wrote that the court does not tend to intervene in enforcement policy unless authorities shirk their responsibility or a fundamental flaw occurs in their discretion.

The court determined the state is not shirking its responsibility and that enforcement actions have been taken. While acknowledging the importance of enforcement, the judges decided not to instruct the authorities on the pace of their actions.

The demand for a criminal investigation was rejected as police procedures had not been exhausted. Regarding planning and construction laws, the court noted an alternative legal path exists in the Administrative Affairs Court.

However, the court ordered the state to pay Regavim 3,000 shekels in expenses, explicitly noting its contribution to enforcing the law.

Roi Drucker, director of the Judea and Samaria region at Regavim, attacked the decision: "A region is becoming a lawless land under the auspices of the High Court. The plague of vehicle thefts is happening under the nose of the State of Israel while deliberately taking over state lands. For twenty years, these slaughterhouses have operated undisturbed, and the court accepts the act of sticking a notice as 'enforcement' and makes a mockery of the law."

The verdict does not deem the scrapyards legal. On the contrary, the judges wrote that there is no dispute regarding the importance of enforcing the law. However, as long as the state presents ongoing enforcement actions, there is no legal basis for intervention at this stage.