As my colleague detailed in her ruling, the legislature established a different mechanism for civil servants as opposed to employees of public authorities. While the state submits to the court Message On recognition of the employee's immunity, the public authority submits to the court Application Recognize the employee's immunity. However, the different procedural way of recognizing the employee's immunity is not
requires the conclusion that the legislature intends to apply different criteria regarding the nature of judicial review. At this point, I accept the position of the Attorney General, according to which the procedural difference between the mechanisms stems from the inherent difference between the state and the public authority, which recently has no independent and independent legal body that can decide on the issue of immunity, such as the State Attorney's Office (see Tamar Kalhora and Michal Bernstein, "Law to Amend the Torts Ordinance (No. 10) Immunity of Public Servants," Hapraklit 51 293; 329 (2011)).
- In support of my conclusion that the difference between the state's notification mechanism and the public authority's request mechanism does not require a distinction in the nature of judicial review, I find in the language of the law, in the purpose of the law, in the intention of the legislature, in the procedural way of clarifying the fulfillment of the conditions of immunity, and in the desired procedural and substantive trial.
The purpose of the law: The purpose underlying immunity is to protect the judgment and proper functioning of a public servant in the framework of his or her duties. This purpose is shared by both civil servants and employees of the public authority (and both are included in the definition of "public servant" In Section 7A to the Ordinance), and it is expressed in the Directive The Essential The Permanent In section 7a(a), and the joint for both civil servants and employees of the public authority:
Immunity of Public Servants