Court again rules against residents of Beit Yehonatan
Jerusalem municipality to seal 7 story illegal structure erected in Silwan.
By DAN IZENBERGbeit yehonatan 311(photo credit: AP)
One more, and perhaps final, effort of Beit Yehonatan tenants to avoid a court order calling for their evacuation and the sealing up of the building, failed on Tuesday, when the Jerusalem District Court for Administrative Affairs turned down their petition to reject Mayor Nir Barkat’s decision to enforce the order.Beit Yehonatan is a seven-story residential structure built without a permit in the Silwan neighborhood in east Jerusalem.On February 11, 2007, the Magistrate’s Court for Local Affairs rejectedpetitions filed by the tenants in the building against orders issued bythe municipality to vacate and seal up the building. The decision wasupheld in appeals against it to the Jerusalem District Court and theSupreme Court.Barkat refused to enforce the court ruling, despite the opinion of hislegal adviser, Yossi Havilio. However, on February 3, 2010, understrong pressure from State Attorney Moshe Lador, he finally gave in andsaid he would implement the court order even though “it was not worthyor just.”In response to Barkat’s decision, two of the tenants, EphraimBen-Shahar and Yoel Danenberg, petitioned the Jerusalem Magistrate’sCourt for Local Affairs to reject Barkat’s decision. When the courtturned them down, the petitioners applied to the Jerusalem DistrictCourt for Administrative Affairs.On Tuesday, Judge Nava Ben-Or rejected their petition.“It appears that the only aim of this petition is to bypass thejudicial decisions that were handed down on the matter of BeitYehonatan and to try to postpone the end,” she wrote. “In my opinion,this in itself is enough to justify rejecting the petition out of handfor lack of any real basis as far as the main remedy asked for by thepetitioners is concerned.”The main remedy asked for by Ben-Shahar and Danenberg was to rule thatBarkat’s decision to implement the court order was invalid because itviolated the mayor’s right to decide policy matters for himself, wasdiscriminatory and stemmed from extraneous considerations.But according to Ben-Or, the tenants had raised the same arguments inthe criminal procedure leading to the Magistrate Court for LocalAffairs’ original decision to seal the building and evict the tenants.Their arguments included the fact that there were many other illegalbuildings in Silwan and that according to the city’s order ofpriorities, those that had been built in areas designated for publicuse should have been dealt with first.Ben-Or wrote that the lower court had heard and rejected those samearguments before handing down its ruling to evict the tenants and sealthe building.
“The court unequivocally ruled that there is no basis to the claim thatthe city was guilty of selective enforcement, that the order ofpriorities established by the city’s law enforcement system werereasonable, that the enforcement with regard to Beit Yehonatan wascompatible with these priorities,” she wrote.Ben-Or also pointed out that the tenants had moved into Beit Yehonatanafter the order to seal it up had been issued, and therefore knew inadvance what the consequences would be.Attorney Ze’ev Sharaf, who represents the residents of Beit Yehonatan,said in a statement released after Tuesday’s ruling that he was“disappointed by the decision.”“We’re talking about a ruling that is flawed from its foundation,”Sharaf said. “And that is in light of a decision by the High Court,which [recently] saw the rejection of a petition filed by Meretz MKs,who had asked to have the building sealed immediately.“[That ruling] also articulated the need to strike a balance betweenthe considerations of the local council and the mayor, and theconsiderations of the court,” he said.“Additionally, there are currently dozens, if not hundreds, ofoutstanding court orders against Arab homes in Silwan,” Sharaf added.“And throughout this whole process, the residents [of Beit Yehonatan]have expressed their surprise over the fact that only one such courtorder, the one issued against them, is being pursued with such vigor.”
