In this position, the state also relies on the rulings of this court sitting as a house. High Judgment for Justice In the matter Kricheli andHalamish (High Court of Justice 1214/97 Halamish v. National Labor Court Anonymous(2) 647, published on May 3, 1999; High Court of Justice 727/85 Netser v. The National Labor Court, 41(2) 589, published on March 30, 1987). In these rulings, it was held that the Labor Court has no jurisdiction to hear the issues at hand In the section 93A To the Ordinance The Police (And its equivalent in the matter of prison guards - Section 129(A) By order Prisons [New Version], 5732-1971) even as a matter of course. This is because the purpose of these sections is to completely exclude the matters mentioned therein from the jurisdiction of the Labor Court in view of the complex relationship between police officers and prison guards and their employer, which is not like any other employment relationship. These rulings were given even before it was enacted Administrative Courts Law Therefore, it was held that the authority to discuss these matters is vested in the House High Judgment for Justice. When the legislature determined that the listed subjects should be transferred In the section 93A To the Administrative Courts, the State's position is that the only change is the transfer of jurisdiction from the High Judgment for Justice to these courts and not to the substantive jurisdiction of the civil courts.
- The respondent, for his part, relies on the result reached by the trial courts. According to him, the language or purpose of section 93A does not negate the substantive authority of the civil courts to hear monetary claims. The respondent adds that his claim does not ask for the nullity of the dismissal, but rather he is interested in monetary relief, and therefore the Court for Administrative Affairs has no jurisdiction to hear it. As a result, and in light of the remedy test, the Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction to hear his claim. The respondent maintains that his claim passes the tests of section 76 of the Courts Law. According to his position, it is possible to discuss the administrative issues that arise from his claim indirectly, since this is incidental to a decision on the tort and contractual grounds in which he sued, and that it is possible to decide in this case for the purpose of that matter only.
Discussion and Decision
- We are dealing with an application for leave to appeal. Therefore, even before it is right to enter into the substantive arguments of the parties, the Applicant must overcome a number of hurdles. First, as required by Regulation 407A of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5744-1984, she must show that she has suffered a miscarriage of justice or that her request raises questions that deviate from the concrete interest of the parties. Second, since we are dealing with an application for leave to appeal that concerns another decision of the trial courts - regarding substantive jurisdiction - it must be shown that a hearing of the application is now required in order to prevent a real impact on the rights of the parties, real damage to one of them, or in order to prevent an unnecessary proceeding (section 41 of the Courts Law).
The Applicant overcomes these two hurdles. First, the question that arises regarding the Magistrate's Court's jurisdiction to hear police lawsuits relating to the issues at hand In the section 93A To the Ordinance The Police, may lead to consequences that go beyond the interests of the concrete parties to the proceeding. There is great value in establishing clear rules regarding the question of the identity of the court competent to hear these issues. These rules will increase certainty and make it clear to future plaintiffs where they should file their claim. The rules of authority must clearly direct behavior. As I wrote at the outset, these rules function as traffic signs. A driver who drives his car and arrives at the intersection uses road signs in order to understand where he is allowed to turn. No less important, the same sign also instructs the driver where he should not turn. The same applies to a litigant who wishes to initiate a legal proceeding and needs guidance to the competent court of law. Just as a traffic sign must be clear to everyone in order to safely regulate traffic, so too are the rules of authority. Therefore, simple and clear rules of authority are of great importance (Civil Appeal 3347/16 Anonymous' Anonymous, [Posted inNevo] Verse 9 of my opinion (Published per day, 20.02.2018)). Moreover, to the extent that special reasons and purposes are the basis for granting jurisdiction to one instance over another, it is of fundamental importance to clearly direct claims to the competent court. Otherwise, the result will undermine the possibility of realizing these reasons and purposes for which the authority was given to this court in the first place. It should also be noted, as the state argued in its application, that over the years, the trial courts have given contradictory decisions on matters similar to the one before us. If so, there is also a need to clarify the legal situation on the issue, and this too has a fundamental aspect.