The sequence of proceedings in this court
- On March 3, 2011, the Attorney General announced that he had appeared before the Civil Appeals Authority 775/11 by virtue of his authority under Section 1 to the Proceedings Ordinance (Appearance of the Attorney General) [New Version] and in my decision of May 2, 2011, I ordered that the hearing Other Municipality Requests 1649/09 and the Civil Appeal Authority 775/11 will be consolidated because in both cases a similar legal question arises. The hearing of the two cases took place before Panel Three on January 11, 2012, and was joined at the same stage by another case that also dealt with the question of immunity in torts (Civil Appeal Authority 4126/11) [Published in Nevo]. Following that hearing, a decision was made on April 3, 2012, stating that in view of the questions that need to be decided in these cases, it is appropriate to expand the composition of the judges hearing them (see the decision of my colleague the President regarding the expansion of the panel of April 22, 2012). The hearing before the expanded panel took place on February 12, 2013, during which a judgment was handed down in the additional case (Civil Appeal Authority 4126/11) [Published in Nevo] which deletes the application with the consent of the parties.
- On January 10, 2012, prior to the hearing that took place in Panel Three, Shai, Respondent No. 3 in Civil Appeal 775/11, submitted an urgent notice stating that she had received a letter from the mayor of Nazareth Illit at the time, Mr. Shimon Gapso, stating that the municipality's agreement to grant immunity to Adv. Gordon was not known to him and that this consent was not given at the discretion of the municipality. According to Shai, this raises doubt as to the authority of Adv. Eliaz to notify the Magistrate's Court on behalf of the Municipality of its agreement to recognize Adv. Gordon's immunity in that proceeding, and that for this reason, too, the request for leave to appeal filed by Adv. Gordon should not be granted. On the other hand, counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for the municipality argued that no weight should be given to Mayor Gapso's letter, since according to them, the discretion of the municipality's legal counsel department on the issue of employee immunity is independent and there is no need to obtain the mayor's approval for this purpose.
- Another development that occurred prior to the hearing before the expanded panel relates to the request filed by the state on December 26, 2012 Other Municipality Requests 1649/09, in which she petitioned to be allowed to submit a supplementary and detailed notice of recognition regarding the immunity of the police officers at the appeal stage. The state justified this request, inter alia, by the fact that the Deputy State Attorney (Civil Affairs) saw fit to reconsider the decision to recognize the immunity of the police officers, despite the original notice of recognition given in 2007