and was not given with the knowledge and consent of the authority." Given the procedure established by the Ministry of the Interior for unique situations such as the one created in this case when the defendant is the legal advisor of the local authority, it appears that the opinion of Adv. Reshef Chen is the one that reflects the position of the authority, while the letter of the mayor at the time does not change the position presented in that opinion.
We have determined in paragraph 24 above that there is no room to apply applications according to Section 7C(a) (and not even in requests according to Section 7b(c) and7B(d) to the Ordinance) the "statement of claim test" adopted by the Magistrate's Court and the District Court in the case of Adv. Gordon in rejecting her request for recognition of immunity, and since we have determined what is the outline and what are the procedures according to which such an application should be heard as detailed above, it seems to me that it is appropriate to return the hearing to the Magistrate's Court in order for it to reconsider the application in accordance with the procedures and according to the aforesaid outline. This, of course, is without expressing a position on the substance of the matter. However, I would like to note that once the Municipality's position in support of Adv. Gordon's request was presented in accordance with the procedure established by the Ministry of the Interior, it is possible to view this request as a request that would have been submitted by the Authority itself had it not been for its special circumstances, and thus it should be treated, including with regard to the issue of the burden of proof that I discussed above.
In conclusion, I propose to dismiss the appeal Other Municipality Requests 1649/09, accept the appeal inCivil Appeal Authority 775/11 and to return the hearing to the Magistrate's Court in order to reconsider Adv. Gordon's request for recognition of her immunity. I will further suggest that in view of the precedential issues in which our decision in these appeals was required, no order for costs will be made.
| Judge |