This is how other municipal applications were determined: 10085/08 Tnuva - Cooperative Center v. Estate of the late Tawfik Rabi, paragraph 40 (04.12.2011) (hereinafter: the Tnuva Second Case); and this is how it was determined, in effect, in every hearing on this question in the Supreme Court since then until this day [...]
Justice Y. Amit also noted this in his article:
"In short, the infringement of autonomy, for which it must be compensated, means the denial of the victim's power of choice, but the infringement of autonomy must be expressed in the consequential damage of negative feelings such as anger, frustration, insult, disgust, shock, and the like" (Yitzhak Amit, "The Wild Horse of the Infringement of Autonomy" Strasberg-Cohen 482, 485 (A. Barak et al. eds., 2017)
(ibid., at length, paragraphs 84-85) (see also: Civil Appeals Authority 1081/21 Anonymous v. Clalit Health Services (published in Nevo, September 1, 2021), para. 13).
- Other Municipality Applications 8037/06 Barzilai v. Prinir (Hadas 1987) Ltd., IsrSC 67(1) 410, it was held that:
In the ruling of this court, it was held that "only a violation of the core of the right to vote, 'the 'hard core' of the human right that sanctifies autonomy" (...) and in a substantive matter, you will entitle the plaintiff to significant compensation" (see: the words of my colleague, Vice-President E. Rivlin in the Kadosh case, at paragraph 39; Emphasis in the original; Compare: the references from the literature cited there, in paragraph 41). Compensation for infringement of autonomy is, therefore: "compensation for injury to personal interests, which is presumed to be the same, for the damage, which was caused and converted when an infringement was caused to the core of the right to autonomy and in a material matter" (ibid., at paragraph 42). The autonomy that has been recognized as part of the "hard core" of the head of damage of "infringement of autonomy" is that which is connected to a person's right to his own body (see: the Da'aka case, para. 16 of the judgment of Justice T. Or), and to the protection against interference with a person's body without his consent (ibid., paras. 17-19).