05.06.2006
The HCJ imposed legal expenses on the state since a resident of Jenin was allowed to travel abroad only after filing a petition: following HaMoked's petition on his behalf, the security ban was lifted and he was allowed to leave for Jordan and Saudi Arabia
On January 4, 2006, HaMoked petitioned on behalf of a Palestinian prevented by the military from leaving for Jordan and Saudi Arabia for a family visit and for performing the rite of al-umrah. Traveling outside of the West Bank is also required for his trading business.
Note that the petitioner was never arrested or interrogated, and he was not informed what is at base of the ban, which infringed on the petitioner's freedom of movement, his freedom of occupation and his rights to family life and to religious freedom.
HaMoked presented in the petition statistics which illustrate the grim reality of a widespread practice of arbitrarily placing security bans on Palestinian travel abroad, a large share of which is lifted following an appeal to the legal advisor of the respondent or the High Court of Justice (HCJ).
To restate, only after the petition was filed, was the petitioner allowed to leave abroad, for this reason HaMoked was adamant that the state bear legal expenses. Thus, on June 5, 2006, the HCJ imposed legal expenses on the respondent in the sum 5,000 NIS. The court further ruled that the petition, which led to a review of the ban, was justified, given the length of time, the damage to the petitioner's livelihood, and the inability to establish the grounds for the ban. The HCJ dismissed the respondent's claim that if the petitioner had waited before reapplying, the security ban might have possibly been lifted. The court judged that a litigant is entitled to settle his objection to the authority's decision in proximity to the decision in his matter.
