The Court refused to intervene in the State's decision to prevent a resident of East Jerusalem from attending the weddings of her two sisters in the Gaza Strip: The decision was made despite the fact that the reason for the security preclusion was information regarding a second degree relative, whom the petitioner does not know המוקד להגנת הפרט
عر HE wheel chair icon
כפתור חיפוש
תמונה ללא תיאור
21.07.2009
The Court refused to intervene in the State's decision to prevent a resident of East Jerusalem from attending the weddings of her two sisters in the Gaza Strip: The decision was made despite the fact that the reason for the security preclusion was information regarding a second degree relative, whom the petitioner does not know
The Court refused to intervene in the State's decision to prevent a resident of East Jerusalem from attending the weddings of her two sisters in the Gaza Strip: The decision was made despite the fact that the reason for the security preclusion was information regarding a second degree relative, whom the petitioner does not know

The sisters of a resident of East Jerusalem are getting married in the Gaza Strip. Naturally, the woman wishes to participate in the festivities, with her husband and small children. In order to ensure Israel approves the family members' entry to Gaza, HaMoked appealed to the Gaza DCO approximately two months before the date of the first wedding, requesting that the family be granted permits; HaMoked received no substantive response, and petitioned the HCJ to instruct the army to issue the requisite permits.

In the petition, HaMoked repeatedly stressed the importance of the right to family life, which includes, inter alia, the right of siblings to maintain their family ties. HaMoked emphasized the importance of the right to freedom of movement, which is an important manifestation of autonomy and of the realization of abilities and rights.

After not having bothered to respond to the applications for a permit, Israel again claimed in its response that no Israeli has a right to enter the territory of the Gaza Strip, particularly in light of the current security situation – entry is permitted only in exceptional humanitarian cases and "in the absence of an individual security preclusion". In the case at hand, the State claimed, the petitioner's second degree relatives were involved in "hostile terrorist activities" and therefore her entry to Gaza to attend her sisters' wedding ceremonies would not be permitted.

In response to the petition, as well as in the course of the hearing, HaMoked warned that the State intends to infringe on the dignity and freedom of the petitioner and on her basic rights, although there was no claim that she or one of her first degree relatives posed a security risk. This is a disproportionate and unconstitutional violation, which contravenes the basic principles of law. Following a confidential hearing the Court instructed the State to reveal parts of the classified material to the petitioners, and confirmed that in any case, this material did not pertain directly to the petitioner or her children. The information which the State transferred indicated that the security risk due to which it refused to allow the family members' entry to Gaza pertains to the petitioner's second degree relative, whom she does not know, and with whom she has never had any contact.

On 13 July 2009, following an additional hearing on the petition, and despite all of the above, the Court refused to intervene in the State's decision and rejected the petition. The petitioner was denied the chance to participate in her sisters' celebrations.  

To view the petition dated 15 June 2009 (Hebrew) 

To view the State's notice dated 9 July 2009 (Hebrew) 

To view the petitioners' response dated 12 July 2009 (Hebrew) 

To view the judgment dated 13 July 2009 (Hebrew)
Print Print
Share

The sisters of a resident of East Jerusalem are getting married in the Gaza Strip. Naturally, the woman wishes to participate in the festivities, with her husband and small children. In order to ensure Israel approves the family members' entry to Gaza, HaMoked appealed to the Gaza DCO approximately two months before the date of the first wedding, requesting that the family be granted permits; HaMoked received no substantive response, and petitioned the HCJ to instruct the army to issue the requisite permits.

In the petition, HaMoked repeatedly stressed the importance of the right to family life, which includes, inter alia, the right of siblings to maintain their family ties. HaMoked emphasized the importance of the right to freedom of movement, which is an important manifestation of autonomy and of the realization of abilities and rights.

After not having bothered to respond to the applications for a permit, Israel again claimed in its response that no Israeli has a right to enter the territory of the Gaza Strip, particularly in light of the current security situation – entry is permitted only in exceptional humanitarian cases and "in the absence of an individual security preclusion". In the case at hand, the State claimed, the petitioner's second degree relatives were involved in "hostile terrorist activities" and therefore her entry to Gaza to attend her sisters' wedding ceremonies would not be permitted.

In response to the petition, as well as in the course of the hearing, HaMoked warned that the State intends to infringe on the dignity and freedom of the petitioner and on her basic rights, although there was no claim that she or one of her first degree relatives posed a security risk. This is a disproportionate and unconstitutional violation, which contravenes the basic principles of law. Following a confidential hearing the Court instructed the State to reveal parts of the classified material to the petitioners, and confirmed that in any case, this material did not pertain directly to the petitioner or her children. The information which the State transferred indicated that the security risk due to which it refused to allow the family members' entry to Gaza pertains to the petitioner's second degree relative, whom she does not know, and with whom she has never had any contact.

On 13 July 2009, following an additional hearing on the petition, and despite all of the above, the Court refused to intervene in the State's decision and rejected the petition. The petitioner was denied the chance to participate in her sisters' celebrations.  

To view the petition dated 15 June 2009 (Hebrew) 

To view the State's notice dated 9 July 2009 (Hebrew) 

To view the petitioners' response dated 12 July 2009 (Hebrew) 

To view the judgment dated 13 July 2009 (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