The respondent has reservations about comparing his case to other cases in which it was determined that it was a circumvention of the administrative proceeding, as opposed to an indirect attack. According to him, in these cases, issues of public importance were discussed, and it was this nature that made the essence of the claim administrative, as opposed to civil. Thus, he wishes to claim that his matter is different from the matter גליק mentioned above, where we discussed an explosive issue concerning a person's claim for compensation for not being allowed to pray on the Temple Mount. Similarly, even in the matter of Golan It was a claim for compensation Following damage allegedly caused to the residents of south Tel Aviv as a result of the Tel Aviv Municipality's policy regarding asylum seekers in the city. According to the Respondent, In our case, we are dealing only with the concrete case of the circumstances of his employment and dismissal. This, as stated, should not be consented to. The broad implications of deciding one way or the other are clear, although it is difficult to estimate their scope. Moreover, even if this issue was of no public importance at all, it would not have helped the respondent. This would not change the fact that the legislature clearly expressed its intention that lawsuits relating to the issues listed In the section 93A To the Ordinance The Police will be clarified before the Court for Administrative Affairs. There would also remain the fact that his claim does not raise questions at all that do not fall within the scope of this section, and that its administrative nature is clear. Let's turn to the matter again Golan:
"... The District Court and the respondents emphasized, inter alia, the manner in which the statement of claim was drafted, which explicitly refers to the broad public aspects of the issue. In my opinion, this is not the emphasis, and even if a "lean" and formal statement of claim had been filed - and assuming that it is sincere to the Applicants' wishes, and that it is all nothing but to receive monetary relief and nothing more - the law of the claim would have remained the same. The test is in substance, and not in the form or motivation of the plaintiff... Such an attack, in the circumstances of the case, must be carried out in the administrative court" (ibid., at paragraph 4 of my opinion).
- In summary, an examination of the nature of the claim reveals that in practice it is a direct attack on the administrative act and not an indirect attack. As such, the hearing of this cannot take place in the Magistrate's Court as a matter in Guerra. The administrative issue relating to his recruitment to the police, his placement in the position, and ultimately his dismissal from service, is at the heart of the respondent's claim. She and only she give rise to the respondent's claim for monetary relief. Therefore, he must bring this issue, as the legislature commands, to the Court for Administrative Affairs. Indeed, it can be assumed that this result will cause inconvenience and higher costs in conducting the legal proceedings for the respondent. This is because this may require a split hearing in the lawsuit. However, it seems that from a practical perspective, exhausting the proceedings in the Court of Administrative Affairs will even lead to the termination of the financial aspects without the need for further discussion, since these in themselves can usually be quantified without the need for a separate legal clarification. In any case, the aforesaid consideration regarding the splitting of the hearing that may arise cannot override the clear intention of the legislature that these matters will be heard before an administrative court. To the extent that it is determined that there has been an administrative defect in the conduct of the police, the respondent will be able to exhaust the translation of the judgment into its monetary value, and even if necessary, turn to the appropriate court to clarify his entitlement to financial relief, which he claims arises from this.
It should be clarified that in this way no position should be expressed with regard to the respondent's claims in the action itself. All we had to decide was in the direction on which the authority sign points to. It is clear that the parties' substantive arguments are reserved for them, but they must be clarified in the appropriate court.
- Finally, after reviewing the application and in response to it, we decided, as aforesaid, to grant leave to appeal and to consider the application as an appeal. The appeal is accepted. The judgments of the trial courts are null and void. The respondent's claim is dismissed out of hand due to lack of substantive authority. He may initiate an appropriate proceeding within one month in the competent administrative court. The Respondent will bear the Applicant's legal expenses and attorney's fees in the amount of ILS 12,000.
Given today, February 12, 2020.