Following a petition submitted by HaMoked, a permanent resident of East Jerusalem was permitted to depart for Jordan, and the Interior Ministry was ordered to bear the Petitioners’ expenses in the sum of NIS 5,000: The petition was submitted following a grave and protracted failing on the part of the Interior Ministry which prevented the Petitioner from traveling via Allenby Bridge. The ministry acted without an order, without a hearing, and without specifying the grounds for such grave injury to her constitutional rights

On 31 January 2004, a resident of East Jerusalem requested authorization to travel to Jordan via Allenby Bridge. After purchasing an exit card and arriving at the Border Police inspection, she was verbally informed that her departure had been prevented, and that she must contact the police in Neve Yaacov. The Petitioner immediately went to the police station in Neve Yaacov, only to be informed that there was no information against her in their records and that she should go to the police station in the Russian Compound and discuss the matter with the representative of the Israel Security Agency (ISA). The ISA representative also informed the Petitioner that there was no information against her and that she could return to Allenby Bridge and leave the country. On returning to the Border Police, her departure was again prevented. In a discussion with the ISA representative the next day, she was informed that she was prevented from leaving on the orders of the ISA. 

HaMoked made repeated requests to various bodies concerning the Petitioner’s case. After these failed to produce results, HaMoked took two simultaneous courses of action, submitting a petition (dated 18 September 2005) under with the Freedom of Information Act in order to secure information about the legal arrangement for preventing the departure of Israelis to Jordan; and submitting an individual petition (dated 13 March 2006) in the Petitioner’s case to remove the prevention against her traveling abroad. In its statement of response to the petition under the Freedom of Information Act, the Respondent admitted that there are no written guidelines regarding the manner in which the basic right of a resident or citizen to leave the country may be denied. However, a letter accompanying the statement of response revealed that before forming its final position regarding the prevention of travel of an individual outside the borders of Israel, the Respondent must present its decision to that person in writing and must enable him to stake his claim argue against its decision.  

Following the individual petition in the Petitioner’s case, the Respondent announced on 11 July 2006 that there was no longer any prevention against her departing for Jordan. In its letter, the Respondent regretted that an error had occurred whereby the Petitioner had not received a letter informing her of the decision, which, as noted, was erroneous. HaMoked’s request to receive the letter informing the Petitioner of the decision not to permit her to depart for Jordan, including the reasons therefore, was not answered, even after the petition was submitted and the prevention removed. 

In view of the failings in the behavior of the Respondent, HaMoked asked the court to order it to pay the Petitioner’s legal expenses. The court accepted HaMoked’s request and ruled expenses of NIS 5,000 in the Petitioner’s favor. The court stated that the Respondent’s behavior in failing to respond to requests from citizens and residents of the state in general, and in cases relating to the restriction of constitutional rights in particular, was unacceptable. 

To view the decision dated 14 February 2007 (Hebrew) 

To view the petition dated 13 March 2006 (Hebrew) 

To view the petition date 18 September 2005 in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (Hebrew) 

To view the state’s response dated 7 December 2005 to the petition in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act  (Hebrew)