| In the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Civil Appeals |
Civil Appeal 15278-04-25
| Before: | The Honorable President Yitzhak Amit Judge Yael Willner The Honorable Judge Gila Kanfi-Steinitz
|
| E: Appellants | 1 . The Palestinian Authority
2 . Palestine Liberation Organization |
|
Against
|
|
| E: Respondents | 1 . Estate Anonymous z”l
2 . Estate Anonymous z”l 3 . Anonymous A 4 . Anonymous A 5 . Anonymous |
|
Appeal against the judgment of the Jerusalem District Court (the Honorable Judge A. Nachlon) in Civil Case 27553-04-24 from February 6, 2025 and July 17, 2025; Response to the Appeal
|
|
| In the name of the Lord: Appellants | Attorney Leo Carmeli |
| In the name of the Lord: Respondents | Attorney Meir Schiuschoder ; Adv. Ariel Meitlis |
| Judgment
|
E: President Yitzhak Amit
Appeal against the judgments of the Jerusalem District Court (Judge A. Nachon) from February 6, 2025 and July 17, 2025 in civil file 27553-04-24, in which it was determined that the respondents were entitled to medication damages as well as exemplary damages by virtue of Compensation for Victims of Terrorism (Exemplary Compensation) Law, 5784-2024, as the heirs of the deceased and as indirect victims (Hereinafter: Exemplary Compensation Law or The Law andThe deceased, respectively).
The Background Required for Our Matter
- On December 1, 2001, a double suicide bombing attack and car bombing took place in the area of the Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem. The murderous attack resulted in the death of 11 people, including the deceased, who was only 15 years old, the son of respondents 2-3 and the brother of respondents 4-5. For many years the respondents have been managing their claim. It should be noted that during these years, unfortunately, respondent No. 2 passed away.
I will now discuss the course of events that pertain to our matter.
- In 2019, the District Court issued a judgment on the question of the appellants' responsibility for the attack. An appeal was filed against the judgment to this court (Civil Appeal 2362/19 Anonymous v. Palestinian Authority (April 10, 2022) (hereinafter: Matter Anonymous)). In the matter Anonymous It was held for the first time that the payment policy of appellant 1, the Palestinian Authority (hereinafter: PA), which is intended to incentivize and reward acts of terrorism, falls under the alternative of "ratifier" under section 12 of the Torts Ordinance [New Version] (hereinafter: The Torts Ordinance). Therefore, it was determined that the PA bears direct and personal responsibility for the attacks discussed there and can be required to pay medical compensation. At the same time, it was determined that the PA should not be obligated to pay punitive damages, for this determination I will reiterate later. Request for a Further Hearing on the Matter Anonymous Rejected (Additional Civil Hearing 2744/22 Palestinian Authority v. Anonymous (30.8.2022)).
In light of the judgment in the Anonymous, the case was returned to the District Court in order to examine the medication compensation due to the respondents.
- Between me and me, on June 1, 2024, the Model Compensation Law came into effect. In view of the importance of the law for our matter, I will bring some of the provisions set forth therein as they were:
Definitions
- In this law –
[...]