Caselaw

High Court of Justice 8425/13 Eitan Israeli Immigration Policy et al. v. Government of Israel

September 22, 2014
Print
In the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice

 

High Court of Justice 7385/13
High Court of Justice 8425/13

 

Before: H.E. President A. Grunis
  The Honorable Vice President M. Naor
  The Honorable Judge (Ret.) A. Arbel
  The Honorable Judge S. Jubran
  The Honorable Judge A. Hayut
  The Honorable Judge Y. Danziger
  The Honorable Justice N. Hendel
  The Honorable Judge A. Vogelman
  The Honorable Judge Y. Amit

 

The petitioners in the High Court of Justice case 7385/13: Eitan – Israeli Immigration Policy et al.

 

The petitioners in the High Court of Justice case 8425/13: 1. Zari Gabriselassie

2. Tedros the Betahammers

3. The Hotline for Refugees and Migrants

4. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel

5. ASSAF.  Refugee Aid Organization

6. Kav LaOved

7. Physicians for Human Rights – Israel

8. Center for the Advancement of African Refugees

 

Those who wish to join as “friends of the court” in High Court of Justice case 8425/13: 1. Kohelet Forum

2. Concord Center

 

  Against

 

Respondents in High Court of Justice case 7385/13: 1. Government of Israel
  2. The Prime Minister
  3. The Minister of Defense
  4. Minister of the Interior
  5. The Minister of Public Security
  6. The Minister of Finance
  7. Minister of Justice
  8. Minister of Economy
  9. Director of the Population and Immigration Authority
  10. The Attorney General
  11. The Commissioner of Border Control at the Ministry of the Interior

 

Respondents in High Court of Justice Case 8425/13: 1. The Knesset
  2. Minister of the Interior
  3. The Minister of Defense
  4. The Minister of Public Security
  5. The Attorney General

 

Objection to an Order Nisi

 

Meeting Dates: 22 Tevet 5774 (25.12.2013)
  1st of Nissan 5774 (1.4.2014)

 

On behalf of the petitioners in High Court of Justice case 7385/13: Adv. Doron Taubman

 

On behalf of the petitioners in High Court of Justice case 8425/13: Adv. Oded Feller; Adv. Jonathan Berman;

Adv. Anat Ben-Dor; Adv. Elad Kahane;

Adv. Assaf Weitzen; Adv. Osnat Cohen-Lifshitz

 

On behalf of Respondent 1 in High Court of Justice Case 8425/13: Adv. Dr. Gur Bligh

 

 

On behalf of the respondents in HCJ case 7385/13 and respondents 2-5 in HCJ  case 8425/13: Adv. Yochi Gnessin; Adv. Ran Rosenberg;

Adv. Yitzhak Bart; Adv. Noam Mola

 

 

On behalf of Applicant 1 to join the High Court of Justice  8425/13 as an “amicus curiae”: Adv. Ariel Erlich; Adv. Dr. Aviad Bakshi

 

 

On behalf of Applicant 2 to join the High Court of Justice  8425/13 as an “amicus curiae”: Adv. Avinoam Cohen

 

 

Judgment

Judge A. Vogelman:

Table of Contents

  1. Opening Words8
  2. The Judgment in the Adam Case10

III.      Amendment No. 4 - The Legislative Process, the Main Points of the Amendment and its Implementation  11

  1. The Petitions Before Us13
  2. Summary of the petitioners' arguments In a High Court of Justice case 7385/1313
  3. Summary of the petitioners' arguments In a High Court of Justice case 8425/1313

III.    The State's Position.. 15

  1. The Knesset's Response. 18
  2. Those who wish to join.. 19
  3. Discussion and Decision. 20
  4. High Court of Justice 8425/13. 20
  5. The Constitutional Analysis. 20
  6. The phenomenon of infiltration, asylum requests, and everything in between 24

(a)      Background - The Phenomenon of Infiltration. 24

(b)      The Dimensions of the Phenomenon - An Up-to-Date Look. 33

(c)      Interim Summary. 35

  1. Section 30A of the Law.. 36

(a)      The Violation of Constitutional Rights. 40

(b)      "For a Proper Purpose" 42

(i)         Identification and exhaustion of exit channels for deportation  43

(ii)        Preventing the recurrence of the phenomenon of infiltration  44

(c)      Proportionality. 44

(i)         The Rational Connection Test 44

(ii)        The test of the means that is less harmful 48

(iii)       The test of proportionality in the narrow sense. 52

(d)      The Remedy. 60

  1. Chapter 4 of the Law.. 61

(a)      About the "Holot" accommodation center. 63

(b)      Milin Academy. 67

(c)      Violation of Rights and the Structure of the Exam.. 69

(d)      "For a Proper Purpose" 70

(i)         Preventing Settlement and Integration into the Labor Market 70

(ii)        Responding to the Infiltrators' Needs. 71

(iii)       Another Alleged Purpose: Encouraging "Voluntary" Departure  73

(e)      Arrangements for Chapter D of the Law - Concrete Examination. 77

(i)         Obligation to report to the center - is it really "open"?. 77

1)     The Violation of Constitutional Rights. 79

2)     The Constitutional Right to Human Dignity. 81

3)     Proportionality. 86

  1. a) The Rational Connection Test 86
  2. b) The test of the means that is less harmful 86
  3. c) The test of proportionality in the narrow sense. 89

(ii)        Management of the detention center by the Israel Prison Service and the powers of the prison guards. 93

1
2...67Next part