Procedures Relating to the Immunity of State Employees
- A plaintiff filing a tort claim against a civil servant is required to provide notice to the district attorney in which the court hearing the claim is located, together with the statement of claim, on the same date he served the statement of claim to the employee (Regulation 3-2 to the Regulations) and the Attorney General may submit it to the court, within the prescribed period In Regulation 6 for the regulations, Message that the state recognizes the employee's immunity in relation to the lawsuit and requests that the claim against the employee be dismissed. If such notice is filed, the claim against the employee will be dismissed, and the state will be joined as a defendant to the claim, to the extent that it was not previously sued, and the claim will be deemed to have been filed against the state by virtue of its responsibility for the employee's act (Sections 7b(a)-7b(b) to the Ordinance).
The State's Notice and its Request to Dismiss the Claim Against the Worker require the dismissal of the claim against him - This is how the instruction instructs Section 7B(b) to the Ordinance - unless the plaintiff has filed such a request In section 7b(c) whose instructions we will discuss below.
This unusual procedure, according to which Message The state's decision to a large extent dictates the outcome of the lawsuit insofar as it was directed against the employee, reflecting the legislature's willingness to give decisive weight to the Attorney General's decision with regard to the existence of immunity and with regard to imposing the sole responsibility for the plaintiff's compensation, to the extent proven, on the shoulders of the state. In other words, it appears that from the considerations we have enumerated above, the legislature was prepared to suffice in this context with an administrative decision that determines that the conditions set forth in the Ordinance for the recognition of the employee's immunity have been met, in its opinion that such a decision - to the extent that it complies with the rules of administrative law - is sufficient and there is no need to add to it a legal proceeding in which the court will have to clarify with evidence the existence of the conditions of immunity (explanatory notes to section 7b of the bill; Kalhora and Bardenstein, at pp. 321-323).