As you may recall, Administrative Courts Law Provides that any action in matters contained in this section shall be referred to the Court for Administrative Affairs. According to the respondent's position, this conduct of the police - With regard to issues such as his appointment to the position, his removal from office, and his dismissal - It is the one that establishes his entitlement to compensation. This is not one of many elements in the Respondent's claim, and it is not a matter that must be clarified in passing, alongside other and more fundamental questions that the Respondent wishes to raise. The only, certainly the main question, that will be before the trial court is whether the police lawfully acted in making decisions and carrying out various actions relating to the respondent's service. As stated, these are questions relating to substantive authority that the legislature is explicitly required to address. There is no dispute that if it were not for the Section 93A These are questions that were at the heart of the Labor Courts' jurisdiction - These are questions relating to the relationship between an employee and his employer. But Section 93A takes the authority to hear them out of the hands of the system of these courts. Instead, it was determined that the Court for Administrative Affairs would be authorized to rule on these matters, in view of the clear administrative dimension of the employment of police officers in the Israel Police - The state body responsible for maintaining public order. Questions relating to this dimension are the questions that the respondent wishes to raise in his claim. In this framework, these questions arise clearly, head-on, and in a way that only an answer to them can lead to a full clarification of the claim. In fact, they are the sum of his claim. In contrast, the respondent's claim does not raise other questions from which he seeks to learn that he is entitled to compensation. There are no additional questions that are the main one, and in contrast to them, the administrative issues are trivial. This is therefore not an honest indirect attack, but rather an attempt to circumvent the administrative process by wrapping up the lawsuit, which mainly raises administrative questions - As defined by Section 93A To the Ordinance The Police - Under civil guise. As the Applicant also pointed out, in the statement of claim the Respondent does not refer to a concrete tort cause that establishes his entitlement to compensation. This reinforces the fact that most of the discussion surrounding the respondent's employment relationship with the police is administrative in nature. Since the main essence of the claim is administrative, the intention of the legislature must be respected and the claim must be referred to the Court for Administrative Affairs. As the judge wrote Y. Amit In the matter Civil Appeal Authority 2063/16 Glick N' Israel Police [Posted inNevo] (Published on January 19, 2017) (hereinafter: Matter גליק):