An oral hearing on any application filed under sections 7b(c) or 7b(d) of the Ordinance. On the other hand, there is no room for the extreme counter-approach presented by the state in this context, according to which the court will rarely hold a hearing on an application filed under sections 7b(c) and 7b(d) of the Ordinance (Civil Appeal 1927/10 Fine Entertainment Cinema Factories in a Tax Appeal v. Adv. Reshef [published in Nevo] (November 24, 2011)). The question of whether or not to hold a hearing and interrogation of declarants in these motions is at the discretion of the court, which the court must apply according to the outline set in this regard in case law relating to the holding of a hearing and the interrogation of declarants in written motions in accordance with Regulation 241(d) of the Civil Procedure Regulations. According to this outline, the court will order a hearing on such an application to the extent that the clarification of the factual dispute that occurred between the parties is required in order to decide the application and one of the parties has requested to cross-examine the declarants On behalf of the other party (Civil Appeal Authority 2508/98 Matan Y. Communication Systems and Detection in a Tax Appeal v. Miltal Communications Ltd., IsrSC 35(3) 26 (1998) (hereinafter: the Matan Case); Civil Appeal 823/08 Hazan v. Tax Authority - Tax Assessor Netanya, [published in Nevo], para. 6 (January 4, 2009); Civil Appeal Authority 6793/08 Loire in Tax Appeal v. Meshulam Levinstein Engineering and Contracting Ltd., [published in Nevo], para. 16 (June 28, 2009)). However, it was held that the court may limit the scope of the investigation at the stage of clarifying the request and that "the cross-examination in these proceedings should not be turned into a general rehearsal in preparation for the trial" (Matan, at p. 34; Goren, at p. 752).
As stated, Regulation 10 to the Torts Regulations that Section A Chapter 20 of the Civil Procedure Regulations will apply to applications under Section 7b(c) and7B(d) "with the necessary changes and subject to the provisions of these Regulations", but it appears that the outline outlined above for the purpose of the hearing and interrogation of the declarants in written applications is also the appropriate outline for the purposes of the said requests. It also appears that the Regulation 11(a) The Torts Regulations do not deviate from the same outline, and all that is stated in it is that Insofar as it is determined Date for an oral hearing, the declarants must appear on the date set for the interrogation of their affidavits "unless the court orders otherwise."
- In our case, and insofar as it relates to holding an oral hearing on Flexer's request, the trial court was of the opinion that there was no need for such a hearing to be held in its determination, in contrast to the position presented by Flexer, that it should not discuss the existence of the conditions of immunity, but rather that it should examine the decision to recognize the immunity of police officers by way of judicial review and in accordance with the rules of administrative law. As detailed above, we are of the opinion that the trial court was right