CEC case 50-52, 54-59/26
Nine ministers, and the distinction between a minister's office and a Knesset member's office
Decision of the Chairperson of the Central Elections Committee of 16 June 2026: the broadest decision in the series, and the one in which it was held that an office in the Knesset building is not a public resource for the purposes of section 2A, so the petitions were dismissed regarding videos filmed there. On the other hand, it was held that a room on the government floor of the Prime Minister's Office building is a public resource.
Translated: · Hebrew version updated:
In one line
The broadest decision in the series, covering nine ministers from the Likud and Religious Zionism, and the one that set a substantive distinction: an office in the Knesset building is not a public resource for the purposes of section 2A, unlike a minister's office in a government ministry. For this reason, the petitions were dismissed regarding videos filmed there.
| Case numbers | CEC case (תב״כ) 50/26, 51/26, 52/26, 54/26, 55/26, 56/26, 57/26, 58/26, 59/26 |
|---|---|
| Decision | 16 June 2026 |
| Chairperson of the Central Elections Committee | Justice Noam Sohlberg, Deputy President of the Supreme Court |
| Petitioner | Yaron Meiri, Adv. & CPA — in person |
| For the Religious Zionism ministers | Adv. Eli Shmuelian |
| For the Likud ministers | Adv. Avi Halevi |
| For the other respondents | Adv. Yonatan Berman |
| Dates filed | 27, 28 and 31 May 2026 |
| Outcome | Four granted in full · four granted in part · one became moot · costs to the petitioner |
Who the respondents were
| Proceeding | Minister | Post | Party |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEC case 50/26 | Bezalel Smotrich | Minister of Finance | Religious Zionism |
| CEC case 51/26 | Orit Strock | Minister of Settlement and National Missions | Religious Zionism |
| CEC case 52/26 | Ofir Sofer | Minister of Aliyah and Integration | Religious Zionism |
| CEC case 54/26 | Nir Barkat | Minister of Economy and Industry | Likud |
| CEC case 55/26 | Avi Dichter | Minister of Agriculture and Food Security | Likud |
| CEC case 56/26 | Gila Gamliel | Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology | Likud |
| CEC case 57/26 | Eli Cohen | Minister of Energy and Infrastructure | Likud |
| CEC case 58/26 | Haim Katz | Minister of Tourism, of Construction and Housing, of Health and of Welfare | Likud |
| CEC case 59/26 | Shlomo Karhi | Minister of Communications | Likud |
The new legal holding: a Knesset member's office is not a minister's office
The respondents argued that some of the videos were filmed not in offices in government ministries but in offices in the Knesset building: one video of Minister Dichter and three of Minister Karhi. The argument required a ruling on a question that had not been fully decided until then.
"Knesset members' offices were given to them for their political needs, not for state or public needs. In any case they do not carry a non-political character; on the contrary, their character is entirely political. Therefore, as a rule, they also do not involve public resources access to which would give a special advantage over other candidates in the elections."Quoted in the decision from CEC case 5/26 Ben Meir v. Ben Gvir, para. 21 (unofficial translation)
The conclusion: an office in the Knesset does not have the features of "public resources" for the purposes of section 2A, and the petitions were dismissed regarding the videos filmed there. For the same reason, the argument that all 120 Knesset members should be joined as respondents to the petition was also rejected.
By contrast: a room on the government floor
One video was filmed, as alleged, "in a side room on the government floor of the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem". Here the ruling was different: no good reason was found to distinguish between such a room and a minister's office. Although the minister did not use his own office, that room is still an asset of a government ministry, and candidates who are not ministers have no access to it, so it too is a public resource.
The selective enforcement argument: rejected
The Religious Zionism ministers argued that the prohibition was enforced only against them. The argument was rejected on the basis of the discussion of other ministers in the same petition itself, and of earlier decisions in the Ben Gvir matter, the Kisch matter and the Prime Minister's matter.
Two videos that could be edited
Two videos were classed as borderline cases. In one, the Energy Minister reported on a reform by his ministry, and only at the start added a personal background: "after I broke the Israel Electric Corporation's monopoly". In the other, the Welfare Minister described a budget approved for resilience centers, and at the end added "I welcome the outcome", a statement that takes credit for the whole decision. It was held that if the videos can be edited so that those sentences are removed, they may be uploaded again in the edited form; if not, the whole video must be removed.
Outcomes and costs
| Proceeding | Videos | Outcome | To the petitioner | To the ministry + the Attorney General |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEC case 50/26 — Smotrich | 1 | Granted in full | ₪1,500 | ₪1,000 |
| CEC case 51/26 — Strock | 2 | Granted in full | ₪3,000 | ₪2,000 |
| CEC case 52/26 — Sofer | 1 | Granted in full | ₪1,500 | ₪1,000 |
| CEC case 54/26 — Barkat | 3 | Granted in full | ₪4,500 | ₪3,000 |
| CEC case 55/26 — Dichter | 1 | Granted in part | ₪1,000 | ₪1,000 |
| CEC case 56/26 — Gamliel | — | Moot and struck out | ₪1,000 | ₪500 |
| CEC case 57/26 — Eli Cohen | 7 | Granted in part | ₪8,000 | ₪7,000 |
| CEC case 58/26 — Haim Katz | 4 | Granted in part | ₪5,000 | ₪4,000 |
| CEC case 59/26 — Karhi | 8 | Granted in part | ₪10,500 | ₪8,000 |
The considerations for costs
In setting the costs, four explicit considerations were weighed: the similarity of the petitions in substance; the number of videos in each petition and their posting dates; the expectation of a faster resolution of the issue after the earlier decision in the Kisch matter; and, in the petitions against the Religious Zionism ministers, on the one hand, that their counsel's response should have been attached to the petition soon after it was received, and on the other hand, that the ministers' answers were filed about a week and a half late without any real explanation.
This page summarizes a public decision of the Chairperson of the Central Elections Committee for the 26th Knesset. The summary was prepared by our office and is not a substitute for reading the full decision. Nothing here is legal advice, and results achieved in the past are no promise of a similar result in the future.
A question on election propaganda law, or on a petition to the CEC Chairperson?
A first call to look at your case.