NIS 36 Million Lawsuit: Court Rules in Battle over Nahal Asi

The Tel Aviv District Court on Thursday rejected a request to certify a class action lawsuit totaling NIS 36 million against Kibbutz Nir David, which dealt with blocking public access to Nahal Asi. Judge Idit Berkovich ruled that the claim is not suitable for a class action, balancing public rights against residents' privacy. The decision adopts the state's outline for controlled access, leaving open the constitutional question of the kibbutz's authority to block its gates.

The Tel Aviv District Court on Thursday rejected a request to certify a class action lawsuit totaling NIS 36 million against Kibbutz Nir David, which dealt with blocking public access to Nahal Asi. The request, filed in June 2020 on behalf of Beit She'an residents and other visitors, claimed that the kibbutz operates in a discriminatory and illegal manner by blocking the gates to the public water resource, violating the Water Law and unjustly enriching itself. The plaintiffs emphasized the gap between closing the entrance to the public under the guise of privacy and operating commercial tourism, guest rooms, and leisure activities for a fee along the riverbanks. Judge Idit Berkovich ruled that the claim is not suitable for a class action and does not meet the conditions. She stressed the need to balance conflicting rights: there is no place for a sweeping blockade of a natural resource, but state ownership does not grant a right to freely walk through the kibbutz gate without regard for residents' privacy, safety, and security. The ruling joins a previous decision by the Haifa District Court from August 2021, which recognized the river as public land but also recognized the kibbutz's rights. The court adopted the state's outline allowing controlled access in the green beach area and the southern bank, while preventing free passage on the northern bank. Investments by kibbutz members in cleaning and rehabilitating the river were also taken into account. Procedurally, the plaintiffs' claims were rejected, but it was clarified that the dismissal does not decide the fundamental constitutional question, which remains open.