The parties' arguments
- The Applicant argues that her application raises an issue of principle, namely the Magistrate's Court's jurisdiction to hear a monetary claim related to the police's decisions regarding the recruitment, placement and dismissal of a police officer. The State seeks to argue that the Magistrate's Court lacks such jurisdiction and that the court agreed to hear the Respondent's claim is the Court for Administrative Affairs. This is in view of Section 93A of the Police Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971, which excludes, inter alia, decisions regarding the recruitment, placement and dismissal of police officers from the applicability of the employee-employer relationship, as well as in view of the Administrative Courts Law, 5760-2000, which stipulates that claims that attacks decisions on these matters will be brought to the Court for Administrative Affairs (Item 37 of the Addendum the first of the law). According to the state, it is inconceivable that the legislature chose to exclude the employment relationship between police officers and the state from the jurisdiction of the Labor Court, which does not dispute that it has the professional expertise to discuss these issues, but at the same time permits a civil court without expertise in labor law issues to rule on those issues. It is clear that if it were not for the police officers, the claim should have been clarified before the Labor Court. Therefore, a specific arrangement is implemented, which stipulates that in view of the special status and administrative nature of the employment of police officers, claims in their matter must be referred to the Court for Administrative Affairs, the remedy test is withdrawn and the claim must be clarified according to its substance in the manner defined by the legislature, even if the plaintiff places monetary relief at its center.
The state further argues that the Magistrate's Court should not be allowed to hear the issue of indirect assault as a matter in which Section 76 of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984. According to her, the questions relating to the administrative acts of recruitment, placement and dismissal of the respondent are the main questions that are to be clarified in his claim, and therefore these are not disputes that are on the margins of the claim. The main point of the discussion is not the financial relief demanded by the respondent, but rather the administrative flaws in the conduct of the police to which he alleges. Therefore, this must be discussed in a court to which the legislature has assigned the substantive authority to do so - The Court for Administrative Affairs.