The restrictive conditions imposed on Histadrut labor federation chairman Arnon Bar-David following his arrest in November lack sufficient legal grounding to be extended in full, Central District Court Judge Dror Arad-Ayalon ruled in a decision issued this week, partially accepting Bar-David’s appeal against a lower-court order.
Bar-David, the longtime head of the country’s largest labor federation, became the central figure in a sweeping corruption investigation that was made public in early November, after police raided Histadrut offices and detained him, his wife, and dozens of others on suspicion of bribery, fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering.
According to investigators, Bar-David and senior Histadrut officials are suspected of exploiting their positions to steer lucrative insurance portfolios and appointments in exchange for cash and other benefits, allegedly involving insurance businessman Ezra Gabbay.
Authorities have described the affair as one of the most extensive corruption investigations in recent years, involving more than 175 suspects and over 400 witness statements, many of them from Histadrut employees subordinate to Bar-David.
Bar-David, senior colleagues suspected of trying to benefit Ezra Gabbay
Following his arrest, Bar-David was released to house arrest under stringent conditions, including a sweeping ban on entering Histadrut premises, an absolute prohibition on engaging in union affairs, and restrictions on contacting dozens of individuals connected to the investigation. In December, Rishon Lezion Magistrate’s Court Judge Dorit Saban Noy approved a police request to extend those conditions for 90 additional days.
In his ruling on appeal, Arad-Ayalon upheld the existence of reasonable suspicion against Bar-David in connection with serious offenses linked to his role as union chairman, but sharply criticized the breadth and duration of the restrictions imposed. While acknowledging a continuing risk of obstruction of justice, the judge rejected the police argument that Bar-David’s seniority alone created an “inherent” danger justifying prolonged exclusion from his elected post.
“The mere fact of holding a senior position does not, in and of itself, establish a concrete and real basis for future obstruction,” Arad-Ayalon wrote, stressing that the law requires a specific evidentiary foundation – not generalized assumptions – when imposing conditions that severely infringe on freedom of occupation and democratic choice.
The court further ruled that police had failed to demonstrate a sufficient basis for the claim that Bar-David’s return to office would pose a danger to public safety or facilitate the commission of similar offenses, as required under the law to justify a continued ban on professional activity. The judge noted that since Bar-David’s release, authorities had not pointed to any concrete attempt by him to interfere with the investigation.
At the same time, Arad-Ayalon declined to lift the restrictions entirely, citing the scale and sensitivity of the ongoing probe and the concentration of potential witnesses within the Histadrut itself. Instead, he ordered the duration of the prohibitions to be shortened from 90 days to 60 days, subject to closer judicial scrutiny should police seek further extensions.
The ruling underscores the tension at the heart of the case: between the public interest in safeguarding a far-reaching corruption investigation and the heavy constitutional toll of sidelining the directly elected leader of a 650,000-member organization. As the investigation continues, the court made clear that any future request to prolong the restrictions would require a significantly stronger and more concrete evidentiary showing.