Shufersal has not published price files and promotions of some of its stores and will pay a fine of NIS 180,000

Shufersal has not published price files and promotions of some of its stores and will pay a fine of NIS 180,000 despite three appeals it has submitted to the Authority and the court.
Judge Iska Rotenberg of the Central District Court ruled that Shufersal's appeal should be rejected and that Shufersal's claims did not justify the cancellation of the financial sanctions imposed against it, their reduction or conversion with administrative notice.
On June 13, 2019, the Commissioner for Consumer Protection and Fair Trade sent Shufersal a notice of his intention to impose a monetary charge under the Food Competition Law for 11 violations of the law and regulations on three different dates, in the total amount of NIS 396,000.
Shufersal filed an objection to the fine and asked for administrative notice or a reduction in the level of the sanction. After a hearing held by the commissioner following Shufersal's opposition, he decided to cancel some of the violations attributed to her and issued an amended decision according to which the financial sanction will be NIS 180,000.
This amount was imposed for five violations of the law and regulations: one violation for improper publication of a file of stores due to lack of details of 12 branches; Two violations for non-publication of two files of groceries and prices relating to two different branches (Pardes Hanna and Ashdod) and two violations for non-publication of two files of promotions in the same branches.
According to price transparency regulations, a large retailer must publish on the website that it operates three files: a file of chain stores; A groceries and prices file that will include the current price of each grocery sold in the store and a separate specials file for each of the chain stores. This is to enable consumers to compare prices.
The Consumer Protection Commissioner may impose financial sanctions on a large retailer who violated the advertising regulations in the amount of NIS 45,000 for the violation, when before imposing the sanction he must notify the retailer who can in response argue against the sanction against the commissioner. The commissioner can reduce the sanction or change his decision.
Shufersal did not give up and appealed to the Magistrate's Court, where it was argued that before the sanctions were imposed, the authority did not issue an orderly enforcement procedure, as the principles of proper administration require the respondent to publish an orderly and well-known enforcement procedure, among other things so retailers know Equal enforcement on the basis of clear and well-known criteria. But an internal procedure.
It was therefore determined that prior to the decision on the appeal, the Authority will submit to the court for review the internal enforcement procedure on the basis of which the sanction was imposed. The authority filed it and the Magistrate's Court ruled that it was normal and that Shufersal's violations, including the non-publication of an entire file of several stores, were not negligible.
Shufersal, the owner of the resources, decided to appeal again and filed an appeal to the district court, even though she admitted to not publishing files legally. Claims rejected by the court.
According to the court, “The enforcement procedure is a reasonable and proper procedure, and also the provision that failure to publish an entire file will not be defined as a reasonable and proper human error, since failure to publish an entire file is a significant violation which means entire store prices are not advertised to consumers. In any case, insofar as Shufersal has objections to the provisions set forth in the procedure, it must present its claims by means of a direct attack and in an appropriate procedure, the reasonableness of the procedure in this procedure must not be examined by means of an indirect attack. In addition, setting standards for enforcement is a professional decision at the discretion of the commissioner, and the court will not interfere with it. "
It was also determined that "the non-publication (of the enforcement procedure) does not negate the authority to take enforcement measures. The claim that the procedure was tailored to the extent of the procedure (against Shufersal MK) is incorrect, not proven, and the presumption of administrative correctness is not hidden.