In its wording, and in cases where the employee or the plaintiff wishes to appeal it, the court will be required to make a decision and examine it in accordance with the rules of administrative law. On the other hand, and as far as the immunity of employees of public authorities is concerned, the decision regarding recognition of immunity is made by the court, at the request of the authority or the employee.
This fundamental difference between the mechanism for recognizing the immunity of state employees and the immunity of employees of public authorities is rooted in the Attorney General's approach to the fact that public authorities lack a central, independent body like him that can make the decision regarding recognition of the immunity of employees of public authorities (see also: Kalhora and Bardenstein, at p. 329; Minutes of Session No. 504 of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, 16th Knesset, 23-24 (June 16, 2005)). Whether or not there is justification for the various arrangements that the legislature saw fit to establish in the matter of civil servants and employees of public authorities, in any event, meaning and content must be added to the clear difference that exists between the arrangements according to the language of the Ordinance and the Regulations, and therefore there is no room to accept the position of the Attorney General in this regard, according to which even with regard to employees of public authorities, the court must exercise judicial review in accordance with the rules of administrative law. Since the Ordinance expressly states that the authority to recognize the immunity of employees of public authorities is vested in the court at the request of the public authority or the employee, there is no escaping the conclusion that in considering an application relating to this type of immunity, the court must discuss and clarify the question of the fulfillment of the prescribed conditions of immunity In section 7a(a) to the command (see and compare Avnieli, at pp. 482-484).
- To the extent that the application for recognition of immunity is submitted by the public authority and the plaintiff does not object to it, then it is a relatively simple decision that relies mainly on the willingness of the public authority to take upon itself the risk that it will be charged alone in compensating the injured party and with the consent of the parties. It also appears that even when the plaintiff does not agree to the request, but it is submitted by the public authority that believes that in that case the conditions required for recognition of immunity are met, then the court may assume as a starting point that the conditions have been met and the burden will shift to the plaintiff to show why the authority's position on this matter should not be accepted. This approach serves the purposes underlying the institution of immunity granted to public servants, which we discussed above, and the main one is to provide a response to the fear of excessive deterrence of public servants due to personal claims