Alongside the phenomena of bullying, which is expressed in physical and verbal violence against public servants, we are witnessing a phenomenon that is gaining momentum in our places, of filing personal lawsuits against public servants. Is a certain person seeking to threaten or deter a public servant from carrying out his work? Is a certain person seeking to harass and take revenge on a public servant who he thinks has hurt him? Is a certain person waging a political struggle against a public servant? - It is not easy to file a personal lawsuit and attribute to the public servant malicious intent, fraud, harassment, etc., and the goal has already been achieved. The mere filing of the lawsuit is sufficient to harass the public servant
and undermine his peace and security regardless of the outcome of the main proceeding. The plaintiff may achieve his goal by conducting the factual inquiry using the tools of civil law and by having the ability to cause the public servant, sometimes his political rival, to come to the witness stand for questioning about his affidavit at his request (Civil Appeal 1927/10 Fine Entertainment Movie Theater Factories in Tax Appeals and Other vs. Adv. Chen Reshef [Published in Nevo] (November 24, 2011)). It is not for nothing that the legislature chose In Section 7A The Ordinance is to apply the same substantive arrangement to all public servants, both civil servants and employees of a public authority. Applying the rules of civil law in order to examine whether the conditions of immunity for an employee of a public authority are met, creates an unjustified distinction between him and a civil servant, contrary to the purpose of the law and contrary to the desired law.
To put it an aside: We lack empirical research on the question of the percentage of personal tort claims received against public servants. I will venture to say that according to my impression, the percentage of personal claims received, compared to the number of personal claims filed, is very small. In my opinion, the insistence of a plaintiff to sue the public servant personally is suspicious from the outset, where the authority ratifies the action of the public servant and assumes responsibility for compensating the plaintiff to the extent that he is ruled in his favor.
- When we are dealing with a civil servant, the court is required to examine the Notice The state. When we are dealing with a public authority employee, the court is required to examine the Decision Authority. In both cases, it is a decision of the administrative authority. In both cases, the legislature placed the burden of checking the fulfillment of the conditions on the court. In both cases, the court is required to decide on this immediately and in the same legal procedures. I do not believe that different criteria should be applied to examine the fulfillment of the conditions, and the different procedural mechanism established by the legislature was made for the reason we discussed above. As noted, the decision of the public authority to submit a request to the court to recognize the immunity of a public servant is an administrative decision. As such, it enjoys the presumption of administrative correctness - and therefore the burden lies on the applicant to contradict it - and it must be examined using the tools of administrative law and not in the manner in which factual issues are clarified in a civil proceeding. As part of the administrative review, the court must examine whether the decision suffers from one of the most disgraceful aspects of administrative law, such as extraneous considerations, if it is a common decision