Despite the rejection of a petition by a Palestinian physician from the Gaza Strip, and despite the opposition of the State Attorney’s Office, Erez DCO permitted the physician to travel to Egypt via Erez Crossing and Allenby Bridge Border Crossing: The court published a ruling without a hearing being scheduled in the petition, and on the basis of a factual presentation lacking any basis in reality המוקד להגנת הפרט
عر HE wheel chair icon
כפתור חיפוש
תמונה ללא תיאור
04.09.2007
Despite the rejection of a petition by a Palestinian physician from the Gaza Strip, and despite the opposition of the State Attorney’s Office, Erez DCO permitted the physician to travel to Egypt via Erez Crossing and Allenby Bridge Border Crossing: The court published a ruling without a hearing being scheduled in the petition, and on the basis of a factual presentation lacking any basis in reality
Despite the rejection of a petition by a Palestinian physician from the Gaza Strip, and despite the opposition of the State Attorney’s Office, Erez DCO permitted the physician to travel to Egypt via Erez Crossing and Allenby Bridge Border Crossing: The court published a ruling without a hearing being scheduled in the petition, and on the basis of a factual presentation lacking any basis in reality

The petitioner is a Palestinian resident of the Gaza Strip who is a physician studying toward a master’s degree in obstetrics and gynecology at Eyn Shams University in Egypt. She was required to attend an important and fateful examination in order to be accepted as a member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Since Rafah Crossing was closed following the events of June 2007 in the Gaza Strip, the only possibility was for her to cross Allenby Bridge to Jordan and then continue to Egypt. HaMoked sent a letter to the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories emphasizing the importance and urgency of the matter, but no reply was forthcoming. On 25 July 2007, HaMoked filed a petition on behalf of the physician. 

In accordance with the decision of the court, the State Attorney’s Office submitted its response, which included an inaccurate factual representation and effectively described the situation on the ground incorrectly. HaMoked asked to respond to the “facts” presented by the respondents and sent a response to the court. Among other aspects, the response noted that contrary to the claim of the respondents, Erez Checkpoint is open in both directions and is used frequently, and sometimes even without prior coordination.  

In an exceptional step, however, the court published a ruling rejecting the petitioner’s claim in limine, on the basis of the factual presentation made by the respondents and without scheduling a hearing in the case. The granting of a ruling by the court in this manner is unusual and is confined to cases in which “the petition does not show prima facie cause;” this generally relates to vexatious and groundless petitions.

Despite the surprising conductof the court and its rejection of the petition, and despite the opposition of the State Attorney’s Office, the physician left the Gaza Strip through Erez Crossing and traveled to Egypt via Allenby Bridge as she had requested. This case epitomizes the impetuous behavior of the State Attorney’s Office, the tendency of the court to follow its position, and what seems to be emerging as an unacceptable trend: the granting of decisions and rulings without ensuring that the petitioners enjoy a hearing. 

Following her departure to Egypt, the petitioner asked the court through HaMoked to amend the ruling in order to reflect the actual occurrences on the ground. The court declined to do so.  

Read the petition dated 25 July 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the respondents’ response dated 29 July 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the petitioners’ response to the respondents’ response dated 30 July 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the ruling dated 30 July 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the petitioners’ application for an addition to the ruling dated 6 August 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the court’s decision dated 8 August 2007 (Hebrew)

Print Print
Share

The petitioner is a Palestinian resident of the Gaza Strip who is a physician studying toward a master’s degree in obstetrics and gynecology at Eyn Shams University in Egypt. She was required to attend an important and fateful examination in order to be accepted as a member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Since Rafah Crossing was closed following the events of June 2007 in the Gaza Strip, the only possibility was for her to cross Allenby Bridge to Jordan and then continue to Egypt. HaMoked sent a letter to the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories emphasizing the importance and urgency of the matter, but no reply was forthcoming. On 25 July 2007, HaMoked filed a petition on behalf of the physician. 

In accordance with the decision of the court, the State Attorney’s Office submitted its response, which included an inaccurate factual representation and effectively described the situation on the ground incorrectly. HaMoked asked to respond to the “facts” presented by the respondents and sent a response to the court. Among other aspects, the response noted that contrary to the claim of the respondents, Erez Checkpoint is open in both directions and is used frequently, and sometimes even without prior coordination.  

In an exceptional step, however, the court published a ruling rejecting the petitioner’s claim in limine, on the basis of the factual presentation made by the respondents and without scheduling a hearing in the case. The granting of a ruling by the court in this manner is unusual and is confined to cases in which “the petition does not show prima facie cause;” this generally relates to vexatious and groundless petitions.

Despite the surprising conductof the court and its rejection of the petition, and despite the opposition of the State Attorney’s Office, the physician left the Gaza Strip through Erez Crossing and traveled to Egypt via Allenby Bridge as she had requested. This case epitomizes the impetuous behavior of the State Attorney’s Office, the tendency of the court to follow its position, and what seems to be emerging as an unacceptable trend: the granting of decisions and rulings without ensuring that the petitioners enjoy a hearing. 

Following her departure to Egypt, the petitioner asked the court through HaMoked to amend the ruling in order to reflect the actual occurrences on the ground. The court declined to do so.  

Read the petition dated 25 July 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the respondents’ response dated 29 July 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the petitioners’ response to the respondents’ response dated 30 July 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the ruling dated 30 July 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the petitioners’ application for an addition to the ruling dated 6 August 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the court’s decision dated 8 August 2007 (Hebrew)

משפט ישראלי - מסמכים אחרים


משפט ישראלי - כתבי בי דין


משפט ישראלי - חקיקה


משפט ישראלי - פסיקה


משפט בינלאומי וזר - מסמכים אחרים


משפט בינלאומי וזר - אמנות וחקיקה


משפט בינלאומי וזר - פסיקה


ספרות - עדכונים


ספרות - פסיקה במבחן


ספרות - ספרים


ספרות - מאמרים


ספרות - שונות


ספרות - דוחות