Following a petition submitted by HaMoked, the Court ruled that the Interior Ministry must grant permanent status to a girl who has lived with her grandparents in East Jerusalem since she was six months old: In its ruling, the Court sharply criticizes the Interior Ministry in this case, noting that “the Respondent’s actions in the case of the minor were substantially defective and required the intervention of the court” המוקד להגנת הפרט
عر HE wheel chair icon
כפתור חיפוש
תמונה ללא תיאור
10.03.2008
Following a petition submitted by HaMoked, the Court ruled that the Interior Ministry must grant permanent status to a girl who has lived with her grandparents in East Jerusalem since she was six months old: In its ruling, the Court sharply criticizes the Interior Ministry in this case, noting that “the Respondent’s actions in the case of the minor were substantially defective and required the intervention of the court”
Following a petition submitted by HaMoked, the Court ruled that the Interior Ministry must grant permanent status to a girl who has lived with her grandparents in East Jerusalem since she was six months old: In its ruling, the Court sharply criticizes the Interior Ministry in this case, noting that “the Respondent’s actions in the case of the minor were substantially defective and required the intervention of the court”

On 7 February 2008 the Jerusalem District Court issued a ruling establishing that a minor represented by HaMoked is to receive permanent status. The Petitioner was born in Israel to a father who is a resident of East Jerusalem and a mother who is a resident of Hebron. At the age of six months, custody of the child was transferred to her paternal grandparents after her father became addicted to drugs. The Petitioner’s parents divorced and her mother returned to her family in Hebron, where she later remarried. Over many years the child’s grandparents attempted to regulate her status, but the Interior Ministry repeatedly demanded that the father – who was in prison – come to the ministry’s offices in person. At the end of 2004, the child’s grandmother and guardian managed to come to the Interior Ministry together with her son, the Petitioner’s father. An application for family unification was submitted for the child. Almost two years have gone by and the Interior Ministry has yet to answer. 

The Interior Ministry's improper conduct continued in court. It failed to submit its response to HaMoked’s petition, and on several occasions failed to meet the deadlines set by the court. On 30 October 2006, for example, the Deputy President of the Jerusalem District Court, Judge Tsur, ruled that “the Respondent has failed to honor the court’s decision and to submit a statement of response by the set date, despite the extension granted to it; neither has it seen fit to submit an application and request a further extension.” On 9 September 2007, the Court commented: “Space is insufficient to describe the grave behavior of the Respondent in this case which even the State Prosecutor’s Office has had the decency to refrain from defending.” 

On 18 November 2007 the Interior Ministry announced that, on an ex gratia basis, it was willing to grant A/5-type temporary status to the Petitioner for a period of two years, at the end of which it would consider the extension of the permit. HaMoked refused this offer, arguing that since the child had been born and raised in Jerusalem, and had never lived in the Territories, she was covered by the provisions of Regulation 12 of the Entry to Israel Regulations, according to which a child receives the status of their parent or guardian. 

In its ruling, the Court established that the Petitioner is to be granted permanent status in accordance with her grandmother’s status. The Court ruled that Regulation 12 is intended to maintain the most important and basic values of the family unit and to protect the bond between a child and their natural parents or guardians and, above all, the value of the child's best interest. The Court added that the decision was not ex gratia. It ruled that the decision of the Interior Ministry “is inconsonant with the provisions of the law, and indeed with the policy of the Respondent itself.”  

To view the ruling dated 7 February 2008 (Hebrew) 

To view the petition dated 16 July 2007 (Hebrew)

Print Print
Share

On 7 February 2008 the Jerusalem District Court issued a ruling establishing that a minor represented by HaMoked is to receive permanent status. The Petitioner was born in Israel to a father who is a resident of East Jerusalem and a mother who is a resident of Hebron. At the age of six months, custody of the child was transferred to her paternal grandparents after her father became addicted to drugs. The Petitioner’s parents divorced and her mother returned to her family in Hebron, where she later remarried. Over many years the child’s grandparents attempted to regulate her status, but the Interior Ministry repeatedly demanded that the father – who was in prison – come to the ministry’s offices in person. At the end of 2004, the child’s grandmother and guardian managed to come to the Interior Ministry together with her son, the Petitioner’s father. An application for family unification was submitted for the child. Almost two years have gone by and the Interior Ministry has yet to answer. 

The Interior Ministry's improper conduct continued in court. It failed to submit its response to HaMoked’s petition, and on several occasions failed to meet the deadlines set by the court. On 30 October 2006, for example, the Deputy President of the Jerusalem District Court, Judge Tsur, ruled that “the Respondent has failed to honor the court’s decision and to submit a statement of response by the set date, despite the extension granted to it; neither has it seen fit to submit an application and request a further extension.” On 9 September 2007, the Court commented: “Space is insufficient to describe the grave behavior of the Respondent in this case which even the State Prosecutor’s Office has had the decency to refrain from defending.” 

On 18 November 2007 the Interior Ministry announced that, on an ex gratia basis, it was willing to grant A/5-type temporary status to the Petitioner for a period of two years, at the end of which it would consider the extension of the permit. HaMoked refused this offer, arguing that since the child had been born and raised in Jerusalem, and had never lived in the Territories, she was covered by the provisions of Regulation 12 of the Entry to Israel Regulations, according to which a child receives the status of their parent or guardian. 

In its ruling, the Court established that the Petitioner is to be granted permanent status in accordance with her grandmother’s status. The Court ruled that Regulation 12 is intended to maintain the most important and basic values of the family unit and to protect the bond between a child and their natural parents or guardians and, above all, the value of the child's best interest. The Court added that the decision was not ex gratia. It ruled that the decision of the Interior Ministry “is inconsonant with the provisions of the law, and indeed with the policy of the Respondent itself.”  

To view the ruling dated 7 February 2008 (Hebrew) 

To view the petition dated 16 July 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