"The authority of the High Court of Justice, which bears constitutional status, remains as it was to hear all administrative petitions against those who fulfill a 'public function according to the law' as stated in section (15(d)(2) of the Basic Law: The Judiciary. This power has not been curtailed by the Administrative Courts Law, which is at a lower legislative level. It follows, therefore, that the High Court of Justice and the Court for Administrative Affairs have parallel jurisdiction in all the administrative petitions that the Court for Administrative Affairs is authorized by law to hear. TheHigh Court of Justice also has jurisdiction to hear all other administrative matters brought before it. The question of when the High Court of Justice will make use of its parallel authority to hear a matter within the jurisdiction of the Court for Administrative Affairs is a matter for the exercise of the discretion of this Court, which is exercised according to tests recognized in case law..." (Interest Charney, paragraph 11).
Contrary to the state's position, it seems to me that the trend should be to prefer to appeal to the special court over filing a petition to the High Court of Justice. Legitimate considerations in this regard will also include, as stated, considerations of judicial policy dictated by the workload, alongside the specialization of the labor court. In the matter Cerny It is said on this subject:
"In addition to the civil characteristics of the matter, this Court was also guided by other aspects that influenced the classification of an administrative matter as establishing a parallel civil authority, and these are mainly rooted in aspects of judicial policy such as: workload, the need for tools to investigate the truth, the existence or absence of a normative basis for the matter under discussion, and similar functional considerations (High Court of Justice 1921/94 Soker v. Committee for Residential and Industrial Construction, PD 48(4) 237, 245-246). ... In the background of the Supreme Court's ruling on this matter, there was a practical-individual approach, which stemmed from the systemic needs of the division and balance of burdens between the judicial instances. ...