to the negligent search in his opinion that was carried out for the documents suspected of being stolen; that the police refrained from releasing him from detention when they found findings that mitigated the suspicions against him; They refrained from documenting certain investigative actions they carried out; and were allegedly negligent in not examining other directions of investigation. All of these relate in my opinion to the question of whether or not Flexer's interrogation was negligent or not, and this question should be clarified in the court's hearing on the tort claim filed by him, but I did not find that they could change the conclusion reached by the trial court, according to which it did not see fit to interfere with the state's decision to recognize the immunity of police officers under the rules of administrative law. As for Flexer's claim that the police deliberately "leaked" information related to his interrogation to the press in order to glorify their name and out of equanimity for the possibility of harming him. This argument is not based on any evidence other than an explanation raised by Flexer himself in this matter, and therefore this argument is also liable to be rejected.
- For all the reasons detailed above regarding the criteria and procedures according to which applications should be discussed and decided according to Section 7b(c) to the Ordinance and in view of the rejection of the other arguments raised by Flexer as detailed above, I am of the opinion that Flexer's appeal should be dismissed.
Procedures Relating to the Immunity of Public Authorities Employees
- The arrangements that have been established regarding the immunity of civil servants, which we discussed at length above, apply to one degree or another also with regard to employees of a public authority. However, and as already noted, there are certain differences in the mechanism and procedures established for the purpose of recognizing the immunity of civil servants as opposed to those established for employees of a public authority. "Public Authority" Defined Bas 7 to the Ordinance as "a local authority, and any corporation established in the law listed in the addendum", and the main difference in our case between employees of a public authority and civil servants is that the recognition of the immunity of an employee of a public authority requires a decision of The Court In the framework of an application that may be submitted by the public authority or the employee (Section 7C(a)-7C(b) to the Ordinance). On the other hand, the decision to recognize or not to recognize the immunity of a civil servant is in the hands of the Attorney General, who has been notified of it to the court. In other words, to the extent that there is no one who wishes to appeal a decision regarding the recognition of the immunity of a civil servant, the court must implement it