ISRAEL Law and Practice Contributed by: Joseph Sprinzak and Rahel Rimon, J.SPRINZAK
concerned, the placing of cables or pipes on or under the seabed is also excluded. It should be noted that, in practice, foreign vessels are permitted to operate in Israeli coastal waters under a 30-day temporary permit. The vessel will be subject to testing by the Chief Marine Engineer of the SPA prior to being given a full permit. As to sea collisions and casualties, the right of non- Israelis, including foreign insurance companies, to access full investigative materials from the Ports Authority by virtue of the Freedom of Information Law – 1998 was confirmed in Administrative Petition 67484- 03-19 HDI Global Antwerp v The State of Israel et al (The Diana) , despite this law essentially being intended to establish Israeli citizens’ rights to receive information held by public authorities (see 1.2 Port State Control ). In 2025, the Israeli government introduced new regu - lations implementing a significant reform to enhance port services, accelerate cargo handling, strengthen the economy and reduce the cost of living. Amendments to the operational permits of four port terminals at Haifa and Ashdod enable them to expand operations and compete under fair conditions. The reform is expected to ease port congestion, and improve efficiency, by opening additional berths to reduce wait times and increase unloading speeds. Specific steps address congestion in both general cargo and container handling, recognising that 99% of Israel’s imports and exports pass through its seaports: • in Haifa Port, additional land has been allocated for logistics and commercial activities; • in Bay Port (at Haifa), authorisation has been granted to use berths 7 and 8 for general and bulk cargo, with a maximum annual handling capacity of 750,000 tons per cargo type, valid until the end of 2031 – restrictions can be lifted if more than 30 vessels are waiting; • Ashdod Port has been granted 40 dunams (approximately ten acres) at berth 25 for six years, while maintaining its status as Israel’s “national port” for strategic security reasons; and • South Port (at Ashdod) has been authorised to use berth 28 under similar conditions to Bay Port.
Finally, it should be noted that the Israeli Minister of Transport together with the Minister of Finance, issued an order amending the operational licence of the Israel Shipyard Port (ISP), removing as of 2025 all restrictions on the cargo-handling capacity of the port, except in relation to the import of new vehicles, which may not be imported to the ISP at all. This regulatory update forms part of the broader port sector reforms aimed at increasing competition and efficiency in Isra - el’s maritime trade operations. In an interesting recent case, Maersk A/S v Gold Bond Group Ltd (Israel Supreme Court, 5 May 2025), the Court held that the one-year time bar under Article III(6) of the Hague-Visby Rules applies only to parties to the bill of lading (or their successors), and does not bar indemnity or tort claims brought by third par - ties. The case concerned damage to heavy cargo that occurred during unloading at Gold Bond’s Haifa con - tainer terminal, a facility providing container handling, storage and inland transportation services, following carriage by sea. Gold Bond, which was not a party to the bill of lading, subsequently sought indemnity from the ocean carrier, Maersk. The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, confirming that such third- party claims are governed by Israel’s general limitation regime rather than the Hague-Visby Rules, thereby clarifying the limited personal scope of the Hague- Visby time bar under Israeli law. In another recent case, Xin Hai Tong 23 (Haifa Mari - time Court, Case No 73288-06-23), the Court upheld an in rem claim for unpaid general average (GA) con - tributions against a visiting Chinese-flagged vessel, notwithstanding a GA bond governed by English law with exclusive English jurisdiction. Relying on the historic Admiralty Acts 1840/1861 and Section 41 of the Shipping (Vessels) Law, the Court asserted local admiralty jurisdiction and enforced the GA claim, applying the York-Antwerp Rules 2016 and awarding approximately USD1.8 million plus costs and interest. The decision reinforces the Israeli Admiralty Court’s robust in rem jurisdiction over foreign vessels in Israeli waters for GA and related maritime claims, prioritis - ing local enforcement and public policy over foreign forum selection clauses, consistent with prior authori - ties such as Chem Antares and Thor Horizon.
295 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook