I am of the opinion that even though the sum claimed is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court, and is an indirect assault that is technically within the court's jurisdiction, the court should have "lifted the curtain" on the claim and taken into account its essence, and the fact that the applicant did not first exhaust the administrative proceeding (ibid., 2, para. 4).
- The respondent cannot even build on the fact that he did not seek to revoke one of the administrative decisions that he attacked, but claimed that these establish his entitlement to contractual and tort damages. Accepting this argument will lead to the conclusion that "... In each and every issue, it will be possible to circumvent the substantive authority of the Administrative Court or the High Court of Justice, by attaching a 'price tag' to the 'petition' that will be filed. Raising the claim that financial damage was caused as a result of the alleged breach, and claiming monetary relief, will cause clear questions of government policy, for example, to be heard before the civil courts" (Golan case, at 3 of my opinion). Therefore, attaching a price to a claim is not a magic wand that changes the nature of the claim and the substantive issues it deals with. A claim that is essentially administrative will remain so even if a demand for monetary relief is made at the outset. It should be noted that in our case, we are not dealing with decisions relating to government policy that are attacked by the respondent in his lawsuit, but there are considerations of the Israel Police, which is the body responsible for maintaining public order and protecting the public, with regard to recruitment, placement and dismissal of a police officer. These considerations do not relate only to the respondent, but to all those who serve in the Israel Police in a variety of positions and in a variety of ranks. The legislature determined that issues involving these considerations would be referred to the Court for Administrative Affairs. This should not be so easily circumvented by declaring that the plaintiff is not interested in returning to police service, but only seeks to receive compensation. It is not the number in the form of a financial demand that counts. The result will be that many lawsuits that the legislature has defined as administrative, will be heard before the civil courts (for more information, see: Justice Dr. Yaakov Shaked, Indirect Assault in Criminal and Civil Proceedings, 270-280 (2020)).
The focus here is on the administration's conduct and not on a civil dispute. The Administrative Court is the panel that is familiar with such claims. It should be noted that the Administrative Court is intended to provide a solution to the proceedings at the heart of which is the relationship between the individual and the Administrator. Indeed, it is possible that a case involving a government ministry that violates a building contract, for example, will then be heard in a magistrate's or district court, according to the financial relief. But there are two floors in our carnage. The first floor is that we are dealing with a labor relationship between an employer and an employee. The second floor is that it is a claim that deals with a case in which the employer is an administrative body - The Israel Police. This nature of the procedure becomes dominant. It appears that the hearing of the respondent's monetary claim focuses on the administrative aspects of his employment by the police. If this is the case, it is not possible to circumvent it by means of a monetary claim, but rather the nature of the proceeding and the intention of the legislature regarding the question of substantive jurisdiction must be examined. The mere fact that the respondent's ultimate goal is money does not take the authority out of the hands of the administrative court.