Sustainable Tourism Law

PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE TOURISM – THE ISRAELI EXPERIENCE 813 sales contract for every unit should include a condition that the unit should be put at the disposal of the hotel for the most part of the year, so that it should be rented for short-term accommodation as is customary in regular hotels. In another case, civic organizations for the protection of the environment sued not only the developers of a project but also the Local Planning Committee. The building permit it had issued to developers of an area close to the beach did not stipulate that their buildings must only be used for hotel accommodation. The Plan did, however, prescribe that only “vacation apartments” could be built in that area. It turned out that the developers actually assigned 30% of the units for hotel use and the rest were constructed as regular residence apartments. However, the court reiterated the element that distinguishes between a vacation apartment and a residence: that the units will not be used exclusively by the owners but also by other vacationers. The court stated that it would not support a situation where parts of the sea shore – which is intended to be used by the public at large – will in fact be appropriated for regular private residences. It issued an injunction against the Local Commission, stating that the Commission is bound by the guidelines of the legal Planning Scheme and should refrain from issuing any permits in contravention of its purposes. We recall that the concept that sea shores should be retained for public use and enjoyment has been a legal norm since ancient times. In Roman law, in the Justinian Code, it was prescribed as follows: “According to the law of nature, these belong commonly to all mankind – the air, the running water, the sea and the shores of the sea”. That was also the concept adopted by the court. Another case did not pertain to the sea shore but to a rural area near the city Jerusalem. In this case the courts made an exceptionally harsh decision. The area in question was designated as a tourism zone and the Local Commission issued a building permit stating that the developer could only build vacation apartments. But the developer simply constructed 5-room duplexes and marketed them as residences. Some buyers have already even taken up residence in their duplexes. In the face of such blatant activity the Local Commission activated its powers under the law and ordered the electric company to stop supplying electricity to the buildings. The government authorities also petitioned to the court, and the District Court issued an injunction against the use of the apartments as residences. The buyers appealed to the Supreme Court and claimed that their apartments should be considered as “vacation apartments”. But the court dealt severely with