Section 7C relates to the immunity of employees of public authorities and states as follows:
(a) A claim was filed against an employee of a public authority for an act that was done while fulfilling his duties as an employee of the public authority, The public authority or the employee may request, within a period to be determined in the Regulations, that the court will determine that the conditions of immunity under section 7A are met with respect to the employee's act, if the act is committed; If such an application is filed, the public authority will be added to the proceeding, if it has not been joined as a defendant, and the court will determine whether the conditions of immunity under section 7A have been met.
(b) If the court rules that the conditions of immunity under section 7A have been met, the claim against the public authority employee will be dismissed, and the provisions of section 7b(b) will apply, with the necessary changes; If the court rules that the public servant committed the act not in the performance of his duties, the claim against the public authority will be dismissed.
(c) The court shall decide on the request of the public authority or the employee as stated in subsection (a), immediately.
Regarding these provisions, too, dates and procedures were set in the Torts Regulations. Thus it was determined In Regulation 9 that the request of the public authority employee or the request of the public authority that the court determine that the conditions of immunity are met according to Section 7A The order shall be submitted within 30 days from the day on which the statement of claim was served on them.
- As detailed at length in the chapter describing their arguments, the parties presented completely different positions as to the interpretation of the provisions detailed in paragraphs 17-18 above, and prima facie we are interested in questions relating to the procedure and procedures, but it is clear that the decision on them involves and is intertwined with questions relating to the nature and scope of the immunity and hence its importance. Flexer and Shai claim that it is sufficient to argue in their statement of claim that the conduct of the public servant-defendant falls within the scope of the exception to immunity according to the conditions set forth in this matter In Section 7A In conclusion, in order for the immunity not to apply, and alternatively, they argue that at least an exhaustive evidentiary hearing should be held at the beginning of the proceeding regarding the applicability of the exception. the police officers as civil servants and Adv. Gordon as a public authority employee,