The State requested the Court to impose legal expenses on the petitioners, following the deletion of HaMoked's petition regarding a prohibition on travel abroad from the West Bank: the petition concerned the State's refusal to approve the exit of a Palestinian from Hebron, who wished to care for his ailing father who was about to undergo surgery in Jordan

HaMoked submitted the petition on 2 February 2009, after the petitioner, was denied exit at the Allenby Bridge while on route to see his elderly father who had been hospitalized in Jordan for heart surgery. Due to the urgency of the matter, HaMoked intervened and appealed to the Military Legal Advisor for the West Bank in a demand for urgent processing of the application. In response, the military referred the petitioner to the District Coordination Office in his area, for further processing in the framework of the military’s “prior inquiry” procedure [ a procedure under which Palestinians can, ostensibly, inquire whether they are precluded from traveling abroad in advance]. This, despite the fact that the petitioner already knew he was precluded from traveling abroad, as he was sent back from the Bridge. The military instituted this procedure following a principled petition submitted by HaMoked and other organizations against the blanket prohibition of exit which Palestinians encounter when they arrive at border crossings on their way abroad. In the framework of the principled petition, the State claimed that the procedure was merely voluntary and would apply simultaneously with the Military Legal Advisor's continued processing of cases concerning Palestinians who were denied exit at the Allenby Bridge.  

Following the submission of the petition, the State specified, for the first time, the grounds for refusing the petitioner's exit to Jordan. The State claimed the refusal was motivated by current security considerations which indicated, inter alia, that the petitioner was an arms dealer. In view of the military's arguments, the petitioners decided not to continue with the petition, and requested its deletion. The State announced that it did not object to the deletion of the petition but insisted that the Court impose legal costs on the petitioners.  

On 6 February 2009, HaMoked submitted its response to the State's application to impose costs - HaMoked claimed that the military's refusal to respond to the petitioner's urgent request had lead to the submission of the petition. Therefore, the petition was justified, and the circumstances did not warrant charging the petitioners with the respondent's expenses.  

To view the response to the request for expenses dated 16 February 2009 (Hebrew)

To view the request to delete the petition dated 4 February 2009 (Hebrew)

To view the petition dated 2 February 2009 (Hebrew)