Population and Immigration Authority was ordered to compensate for failing to deliver a passport on time

A father sought to compel the Population and Immigration Authority to refund him the amount of fees he paid in Israel for the issuance of temporary passports to his minor daughters since permanent passports did not arrive within three weeks as published on the website. A court partially accepted the claim and ordered the Population Authority to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of NIS 830 For paying fees for ordering temporary passports and another NIS 500 for legal expenses.
At the same time, senior registrar Mart Dorfman from the Small Claims Court in Nazareth rejected the claimant's demand to compel the authority to also pay him compensation for ancillary financial expenses incurred by him, such as fuel expenses and loss of working days since no receipts for this were attached.
The verdict shows that the Population Authority objected to accepting the claim. According to her, the Authority or any of its representatives did not promise the plaintiff that biometric passports would arrive at one time or another. Even if such a promise was given, it is a promise given without authority and without legal validity. It is further argued that the publication on the Authority's website, on which the plaintiff seeks to base it, clearly refers only to the expected date of receiving the passport. According to the Population Authority, there was no delay on the part of the authority, which faced heavy and unusual loads in the shadow of the lull in the Corona epidemic.
Regarding the plaintiff's claim that the officials of the Population Authority assured him that the passports would arrive within two to three weeks, the registrar stated: "In my opinion, what is decisive in our case is the publication on the website of the Population Authority. There is no dispute between the parties that it was published on the website that the passport is expected to arrive within A week to three weeks. But the Authority's argument is that this is only the expected date, which in fact does not create any obligation on its part. I disagree with this interpretation of the Population Authority. My position is that it is the publication of the time frame that legally binds the Authority.
"In this official publication on its website, the Authority created a factual presentation to the public according to which the passport that will be ordered will arrive within a time frame of between one and three weeks. The plaintiff was certainly entitled to rely on this presentation by the Authority. The arrival date of the ordered passport is a critical matter for the public who apply to the Population Authority. Therefore, those who read the Authority's publication on its website regarding the expected time frame for the arrival of the passport, understand that this is a promise by the Authority. This promise is legally binding, and therefore there is also an interest in the Population Authority fulfilling its commitment regarding the arrival of the passport within the time frame of between a week and three weeks.
"Furthermore, according to the authority itself, today the publication on its website was updated regarding the expected dates for sending travel documents by mail, and the estimated and expected period of time that is now published is six weeks. The question arises, what prevented the Population Authority from updating on its website the dates for the arrival of the passport during the period when the plaintiff ordered the The passports? After all, the Authority claimed that it could not meet the demands, and it also knew about it in March 2022 when the plaintiff booked the appointment. So, why did the Authority not update the time frames for the arrival of the passports on the website already then? The Authority did not provide any explanation for this. Therefore, we will see Because the authority has nothing but to complain about itself in this matter."
It was also stated in the ruling that before the hearing of the case, the Population Authority asked the court to delay the decision on the case, in view of the fact that according to it, the Minister of the Interior had decided to establish a broad policy on the issue of fee refunds, and the issue is under discussion and accepting the claim now could create broad consequences (that is, filing lawsuits The court rejected the request stating that it is not the role of the small claims court to give precedence or delay the investigation of cases according to the broad implications that its ruling may create, and discussed the case on its merits.
The Population and Immigration Authority responded: "Already about two months ago, the Authority announced the decision to return the passport fee to citizens who issued an additional passport after the Authority did not fulfill its obligation, in accordance with the conditions to be determined."