The Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court, sitting as an Administrative Affairs Court, on Monday deleted a petition seeking to force Ramat Hasharon to enforce its Shabbat business-closure bylaw at BIG Fashion Glilot, after the city and Mayor Yitzhak Rochberger said they would do so.
Judge Gilad Hess said the municipality had changed its position during the case. It initially argued that the 1967 bylaw no longer suited the city or the commercial complex, whereas it now accepts that the law remains in force and says it has adopted an enforcement policy.
That change is why the court deleted the current petition: because the city no longer claimed it could simply avoid enforcing the bylaw, Hess said the petition’s central aim had been met.
But the ruling does not mean BIG Glilot has been ordered to close on Shabbat, nor did Hess decide whether Ramat Hasharon’s new policy will actually lead to meaningful enforcement. Indeed, the petitioners may return to court if they believe it does not.
The petition was filed in May 2025 by Boris Cohen and the Hapoel Mizrachi organization against Rochberger, the municipality, BIG Shopping Centers, and businesses at the complex.
City initially said bylaw was outdated, then agreed to enforce it
It grew out of a dispute that had become a wider Shabbat flashpoint. The complex’s Saturday openings drew calls for a boycott from haredi groups, while supporters of Saturday commerce argued that residents of a largely secular area should be free to shop and spend time there on their weekend.
The conflict intensified after Ramat Hasharon’s legal adviser said that the existing bylaw did not permit businesses to operate on Shabbat and that the city was required to enforce it. Rochberger, meanwhile, argued that the decades-old law did not reflect the city’s present-day character or the reality around BIG Glilot.
The city began pursuing an amended bylaw that would allow broader Shabbat commerce in certain areas, but it has not received the required approval. Until that changes, the existing bylaw remains the law the municipality must enforce.
Cohen and Hapoel Mizrachi argued that the city had effectively chosen not to enforce that law, and asked the court to require action that would stop businesses from opening on Shabbat.
After the petition was filed, Ramat Hasharon said it would prepare an enforcement policy and begin acting under the existing bylaw. Its policy, published in March, provides for enforcement based on complaints and the availability of inspectors, while giving priority to urgent safety and public-order matters.
The petitioners argued that this was not real enforcement and would allow Saturday trading to continue much as before. Hess agreed with them on one basic point: a municipality cannot ignore a bylaw requiring businesses to close on days of rest.
Still, he said there was not yet enough evidence to determine whether Ramat Hasharon’s approach was effective or merely symbolic. The policy had been in place for only about three months, and the current petition had not directly challenged its final version.
Hess said the court therefore could not assess how the policy was being used in practice, and stressed that deleting the petition did not release the city from its duty to enforce the bylaw.
“On the contrary,” Hess wrote, the judgment gives force to the mayor’s commitment that the municipality will continue enforcing the law under its policy.
The judge ordered Ramat Hasharon to pay the petitioners NIS 5,000 in costs and ordered BIG Shopping Centers to pay a further NIS 5,000.
The petitioners said the ruling reflected the city’s reversal and Rochberger’s commitment in court to enforce the bylaw. Attorneys representing business owners at the complex said the deletion of the petition preserved the existing balance while protecting Ramat Hasharon’s pluralistic and liberal character.
Rochberger welcomed the decision, saying Ramat Hasharon would remain “pluralistic, with freedom of religion and freedom from religion,” and that the city would continue to follow its enforcement policy. The Interior Ministry also welcomed the ruling, saying the existing bylaw remains binding until any new arrangement is approved.