HaMoked asks the court to issue a decision on the freezing of the new military procedure enabling Palestinian residents to ascertain in advance whether they are considered “prevented for security reasons” from travelling abroad: Following the implementation of the new procedure the army is preventing HaMoked and other organizations from processing appeals by residents who have been prevented from travelling abroad at Allenby Bridge Crossing. HaMoked recently submitted a petition on this matter on behalf of a resident of Jenin המוקד להגנת הפרט
عر HE wheel chair icon
כפתור חיפוש
תמונה ללא תיאור
06.04.2008
HaMoked asks the court to issue a decision on the freezing of the new military procedure enabling Palestinian residents to ascertain in advance whether they are considered “prevented for security reasons” from travelling abroad: Following the implementation of the new procedure the army is preventing HaMoked and other organizations from processing appeals by residents who have been prevented from travelling abroad at Allenby Bridge Crossing. HaMoked recently submitted a petition on this matter on behalf of a resident of Jenin
HaMoked asks the court to issue a decision on the freezing of the new military procedure enabling Palestinian residents to ascertain in advance whether they are considered “prevented for security reasons” from travelling abroad: Following the implementation of the new procedure the army is preventing HaMoked and other organizations from processing appeals by residents who have been prevented from travelling abroad at Allenby Bridge Crossing. HaMoked recently submitted a petition on this matter on behalf of a resident of Jenin

In the framework of the petition submitted by HaMoked and other organizations regarding the numerous restrictions imposed on those Palestinian residents defined by the Israel Security Agency (ISA, formerly known as GSS) as “prevented for security reasons,” the court is currently hearing an application by the Petitioners to reinstate the procedure ensuring that residents of the Territories wishing to travel abroad can clarify whether a “security prevention” exists against them before traveling to Allenby Bridge. The procedure was abolished at the beginning of the second intifada in 2000 and the military has rejected calls from HaMoked to reinstate it. In the absence of such a procedure, a resident wishing to leave the Territories only discovers that they are “prevented” from leaving for security reasons on arriving at the border crossing. This causes considerable distress and unnecessary expenses.

In their response to the petition, the Respondents claimed that a new procedure is being prepared that will enable residents to ascertain whether they are “prevented for security reasons” before traveling abroad. After the hearing in the petition the Court ordered the Respondents to present this procedure, and established that the Petitioners would be granted the possibility to respond to the proposed procedure. On 21 February 2008 the Respondent forwarded the new procedure. Before the 30 days granted for the Petitioners to respond had expired, and before the court had ruled on the matter, the military began to apply the new procedure. Moreover, a letter was sent to the organizations from the Office of the Legal Adviser stating that in view of the new procedure, appeals relating to persons prevented from traveling abroad would no longer be accepted. 

On 20 February 2008 the Petitioners submitted their response to the procedure. In the response, and in view of the fact that the legality of the procedure had not been reviewed before the military began to implement it, the Petitioners asked the court to issue an interim order freezing the procedure pending a decision in the petition. On 26 March 2008 the Petitioners submitted an application for the granting of a decision regarding the interim order in view of the fact that the Respondent had ceased processing requests from the organizations and was demanding that applicants restart the process in accordance with the new procedure. The legal advisor for the Respondent even emphasized to the organizations, in order to prevent doubt, that residents who had recently been sent back after arriving at Allenby Bridge must also begin the clarification procedure from the start in the framework of the new procedure. The authorities took this position despite the fact that the first stage in accordance with the new procedure, lasting up to six weeks, is intended for prior clarification as to whether the individual is prevented from traveling abroad. Accordingly, why should a person whose departure has already been denied and who has been sent back from Allenby Bridge need to begin this lengthy procedure? Only the Respondents can answer this question. 

On 23 March 2008, following the above developments, HaMoked submitted a petition on behalf of a resident of Jenin who was returned from Allenby Bridge due to a “security prevention” against him. This is the first petition on behalf of a resident injured by the new procedure as introduced by the military. The Petitioner was on his way to Jordan and then intended to continue to Dubai for work-related travel. In an attempt to solve the problem without the need to turn to the HCJ, and as it had done many times in the past, HaMoked contacted the legal adviser for the Respondent regarding the resident who was sent back after arriving at Allenby Bridge. However, the Office of the Legal Adviser replied that it refused the inquiry in accordance with the change in the procedure. HaMoked thus had no alternative but to turn to the court on the matter. 

In the petition HaMoked clarifies that in order to reserve the right to appeal against the “security prevention,” the military effectively forces residents wishing to travel abroad to act in accordance with the new “prior clarification” procedure. In other words, residents who go directly to Allenby Bridge and are then prevented from leaving due to “security prevention” have no possibility of appealing against this decision. The idea that someone who wishes to leave for Jordan urgently, and who has already received notification of refusal, must begin the protracted process of the “prior clarification” as a condition for the further examination of their request is, of course, absurd. Accordingly HaMoked was obliged to turn to the court urgently. 

To view the petition dated 23 March 2008 (HCJ 2660/08) (Hebrew) 

To view the organizations’ response dated 20 February 2008 (HCJ 8155/06) (Hebrew) 

To view the state’s response and the procedure dated 21 January 2008 (HCJ 8155/06) (Hebrew) 

To view the court’s decision dated 1 August 2007 (HCJ 8155/06) (Hebrew) 

To view the petition dated 5 October 2006 (HCJ 8155/06) (Hebrew)

Print Print
Share

In the framework of the petition submitted by HaMoked and other organizations regarding the numerous restrictions imposed on those Palestinian residents defined by the Israel Security Agency (ISA, formerly known as GSS) as “prevented for security reasons,” the court is currently hearing an application by the Petitioners to reinstate the procedure ensuring that residents of the Territories wishing to travel abroad can clarify whether a “security prevention” exists against them before traveling to Allenby Bridge. The procedure was abolished at the beginning of the second intifada in 2000 and the military has rejected calls from HaMoked to reinstate it. In the absence of such a procedure, a resident wishing to leave the Territories only discovers that they are “prevented” from leaving for security reasons on arriving at the border crossing. This causes considerable distress and unnecessary expenses.

In their response to the petition, the Respondents claimed that a new procedure is being prepared that will enable residents to ascertain whether they are “prevented for security reasons” before traveling abroad. After the hearing in the petition the Court ordered the Respondents to present this procedure, and established that the Petitioners would be granted the possibility to respond to the proposed procedure. On 21 February 2008 the Respondent forwarded the new procedure. Before the 30 days granted for the Petitioners to respond had expired, and before the court had ruled on the matter, the military began to apply the new procedure. Moreover, a letter was sent to the organizations from the Office of the Legal Adviser stating that in view of the new procedure, appeals relating to persons prevented from traveling abroad would no longer be accepted. 

On 20 February 2008 the Petitioners submitted their response to the procedure. In the response, and in view of the fact that the legality of the procedure had not been reviewed before the military began to implement it, the Petitioners asked the court to issue an interim order freezing the procedure pending a decision in the petition. On 26 March 2008 the Petitioners submitted an application for the granting of a decision regarding the interim order in view of the fact that the Respondent had ceased processing requests from the organizations and was demanding that applicants restart the process in accordance with the new procedure. The legal advisor for the Respondent even emphasized to the organizations, in order to prevent doubt, that residents who had recently been sent back after arriving at Allenby Bridge must also begin the clarification procedure from the start in the framework of the new procedure. The authorities took this position despite the fact that the first stage in accordance with the new procedure, lasting up to six weeks, is intended for prior clarification as to whether the individual is prevented from traveling abroad. Accordingly, why should a person whose departure has already been denied and who has been sent back from Allenby Bridge need to begin this lengthy procedure? Only the Respondents can answer this question. 

On 23 March 2008, following the above developments, HaMoked submitted a petition on behalf of a resident of Jenin who was returned from Allenby Bridge due to a “security prevention” against him. This is the first petition on behalf of a resident injured by the new procedure as introduced by the military. The Petitioner was on his way to Jordan and then intended to continue to Dubai for work-related travel. In an attempt to solve the problem without the need to turn to the HCJ, and as it had done many times in the past, HaMoked contacted the legal adviser for the Respondent regarding the resident who was sent back after arriving at Allenby Bridge. However, the Office of the Legal Adviser replied that it refused the inquiry in accordance with the change in the procedure. HaMoked thus had no alternative but to turn to the court on the matter. 

In the petition HaMoked clarifies that in order to reserve the right to appeal against the “security prevention,” the military effectively forces residents wishing to travel abroad to act in accordance with the new “prior clarification” procedure. In other words, residents who go directly to Allenby Bridge and are then prevented from leaving due to “security prevention” have no possibility of appealing against this decision. The idea that someone who wishes to leave for Jordan urgently, and who has already received notification of refusal, must begin the protracted process of the “prior clarification” as a condition for the further examination of their request is, of course, absurd. Accordingly HaMoked was obliged to turn to the court urgently. 

To view the petition dated 23 March 2008 (HCJ 2660/08) (Hebrew) 

To view the organizations’ response dated 20 February 2008 (HCJ 8155/06) (Hebrew) 

To view the state’s response and the procedure dated 21 January 2008 (HCJ 8155/06) (Hebrew) 

To view the court’s decision dated 1 August 2007 (HCJ 8155/06) (Hebrew) 

To view the petition dated 5 October 2006 (HCJ 8155/06) (Hebrew)

Related documents
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