Video of Professor Yehudah Mirsky's lecture at Cardozo entitled "What's a Nation-State For?: Reflections on Law, Religion and Nationalism in a Post-Secular Age" is now accessible through the ISCP website here.
In this update we report on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in four challenges to decisions of the Central Elections Committee for the 21st Knesset, an appeal of a judgment of the National Labor Court on the question of whether resignation due to sexual harassment should be deemed dismissal for the purpose of compensation, and an appeal addressing the question of when organized criminal activity demonstrates the existence of a “criminal organization” under the Combating Criminal Organizations Law, 5763-2003.
Avinoam Sharon, M.A., Adv.
Editor-in-Chief
The Israeli Supreme Court Blog
This issue of the Israeli Supreme Court Blog presents summaries of the recent decisions in LAA 7216/18 Lara Alqasem v. Ministry of the Interior and LCA 5860/16 Facebook v. Ben Hamu, as well as links to the Decisions of the IDF Military Advocate General Regarding Exceptional Incidents During Operation “Protective Edge” and two critiques of the decisions, and abstracts of two recent articles in the Israel Law Review.
Avinoam Sharon
The Israeli Supreme Court Blog
The Israeli Supreme Court Blog is part of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law’s Israeli Supreme Court Project. It is intended to supplement the English translations of Israeli Supreme Court judgments published by the Project by updating readers on the most recent developments in Israeli law and jurisprudence.
This issue of the Israeli Supreme Court Blog presents an abstract of the Supreme Court’s decision of May 24, 2018, addressing the lawfulness of the IDF’s rules of engagement during the recent events on the Gaza border (HCJ 3003/18), and refers to analyses of the decision by Prof. Amichai Cohen, Elena Chachko & Prof. Yuval Shany, and Prof. Eliav Lieblich.
Case Law:
HCJ 4113/13 Financial Organizations Coordinating Agency v. Minister of the Interior at al. – Outsourcing Tax and Debt Collection
In a decision delivered on March 26, 2018, the Supreme Court held that outsourcing tax and debt collection by municipalities constituted an unlawful delegation of authority as it was not expressly permitted by law and involved the delegation of discretion and granting the right to employ coercive force to a private body that is not subject to the principles of administrative law.
In the upcoming months, Justices Uri Shoham and Yoram Danziger will step down from the Court. On Thursday, February 22, the Judicial Selection Committee chose their successors: Professor Alex Stein of the Brooklyn Law School and Lod District Court Judge Ofer Groskopf. Groskopf, 49, will fill the seat being vacated Justice Danziger (five years before he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 70).
One of the unique functions of the Israeli Supreme Court is to conduct a “further hearing” – an additional round of adjudication of a case which is not considered an appeal but is usually held, at the Court’s permission, when all other possible proceedings have been exhausted. A recent decision rejecting leave to file a further hearing petition crisply explains when a further hearing may be held but raises questions as to the Court’s role in preventing corruption in government and administrative bodies.
In recent weeks, political and legal news in Israel have devoted a lot of attention to the appointment of Avichai Mendelblit as Attorney General (“AG”). Below is a summary of the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision in two petitions challenging the appointment, first because Mendelblit was the lone candidate for the position, and second for allegations of conflict of interests.
Over the past three months, the Israeli Supreme Court has been called upon in at least three cases to revisit the issue of military demolition of the homes of Palestinians who have committed (or are suspected of having committed) acts of terror against Israelis. While the Court has declined to reconsider the constitutionality of home demolitions, in two of these cases Justices Vogelman and Mazuz have expressed concern about this measure, with Justice Mazuz calling on the Court to re-examine home demolitions as the relevant jurisprudence dates back at least two decades.
