was granted by the District Court, in light of the precedent-setting hearing set before an expanded panel on the issue of immunity of public servants under Amendment 10 to the Torts Ordinance , and in view of the arguments raised by Flexer in the appeal regarding the lack of reasoning for the original notice of recognition. Flexer objected to this request, arguing, inter alia, that the supplementary notice that was requested was added was irrelevant since his appeal was directed against the partial judgment of the District Court, and this referred to the original notice of recognition. On January 3, 2013, my colleague the President ruled that the request would be brought to the panel's decision and the arguments therein were indeed heard on the date of the hearing that took place before the expanded panel on February 12, 2013. It should be said at this point that the request to file a supplementary notice of recognition raises considerable difficulties, but in view of the result we have reached, and as will be explained below, we did not see the need to address it. We should also note that since it was found that Civil Appeal Authority 775/11 as well as Civil Appeal 1649/09 raise a question of principle that should be clarified before an expanded panel, it is clear that Civil Appeal Authority 775/11 should be considered as if leave to appeal was granted and an appeal was filed pursuant to it. Finally, I will preface by noting that although the two proceedings raise a common question relating to the immunity of public servants, they will be interpreted below, separately, The arguments of the parties in each of the proceedings are because one (Civil Appeal 1649/09) relates to the immunity of civil servants and the other (Civil Appeal Authority 775/11) relates to the immunity of employees of local authorities and because of the difference that exists between the arrangements relating to each of these types of public servants.
The Parties' Arguments Other Municipal Applications 1649/09
- Flexer claims that the injustices committed by the police against him were done knowingly and deliberately, or at least out of equanimity for the possibility that he would be harmed as a result of their conduct. Therefore, according to him, the exception to the permanent immunity In section 7a(a) The Ordinance enumerates in this context three different tests developed by case law in the trial courts regarding the existence of the exception. There are courts that believe, so Flexer argues, that it is lawful to examine the conditions of immunity according to the facts alleged in the statement of claim (hereinafter: The Statement of Claim Test), and they determined that the exception to immunity exists in any case in which it is claimed in the statement of claim that the public servant acted with the intention of causing damage or out of equanimity for the possibility of causing it. A review of the statement of claim submitted by Flexer shows that he did indeed claim facts that meet the conditions of the exception to immunity, and therefore, according to the test of the statement of claim, there was no reason to adopt the state's position regarding the recognition