The Israeli court stipulates: leave an opening for a youth from the Occupied Territories who wishes to study abroad המוקד להגנת הפרט
عر HE wheel chair icon
כפתור חיפוש
תמונה ללא תיאור
04.11.2010
The Israeli court stipulates: leave an opening for a youth from the Occupied Territories who wishes to study abroad
The Israeli court stipulates: leave an opening for a youth from the Occupied Territories who wishes to study abroad
On September 20, 2010, a Bethlehem youth arrived at the Allenby Bridge crossing, on his way to Jordan and on to Yemen, to start medical school which required his attendance no later than October 20. At the border crossing the Israeli authorities prevented his departure for Jordan, claiming the Israel Security Agency (ISA) issued a travel ban against him. The youth went to the District Coordination Office (DCO) to challenge the travel ban, according to the procedure for processing requests by Palestinians to travel abroad.

The procedure was formulated following a general petition against travel restrictions faced by Palestinians who are labeled as "ISA precluded", when they reach a border crossing on their way abroad, and elsewhere.  This case points to one of the procedure's major deficiencies – it does not address urgent circumstances. The procedure stipulates a maximum period of eight weeks in which to review the challenge.

In early October, HaMoked appealed to the head of the Bethlehem DCO, requesting to expedite the handling of the urgent request. Time passed by with no reply. Due to the urgency, and hoping to prevent the loss of the academic year, HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ), demanding the military allow the student to leave for Jordan, and also disclose the grounds for refusal.

In response to the petition, the state attorney's office informed that security officials claim "the petitioner is in contact with terrorists and there is concern that his leaving abroad would jeopardize the security of the area". Spelled out, the military's refusal to allow the youth to leave - liable to drastically alter his future – is not based on a security risk posed by his own actions, but rather by the actions of others. In response, HaMoked stated that since the petitioner's father had been previously held in administrative detention, it is hardly surprising that the petitioner maintains "contact" with people dubbed terrorists by the military. The youth himself, however, was never arrested nor interrogated, and moreover, had left for Jordan in the previous year, without any hindrance.

At the end of the proceeding, after reviewing the "classified material" pertaining to the petitioner, the justices declared that the military ban is justified, nonetheless, they stated that the "door should not be shut", instructing the state to reassess the case of the petitioner again in a year's time, if no additional material concerning the petitioner comes up in the duration. In an exceptional move, the justices ordered to suspend the petition, and set a hearing to review the case in September 2011, if the ban of exit still stands.
Print Print
Share
On September 20, 2010, a Bethlehem youth arrived at the Allenby Bridge crossing, on his way to Jordan and on to Yemen, to start medical school which required his attendance no later than October 20. At the border crossing the Israeli authorities prevented his departure for Jordan, claiming the Israel Security Agency (ISA) issued a travel ban against him. The youth went to the District Coordination Office (DCO) to challenge the travel ban, according to the procedure for processing requests by Palestinians to travel abroad.

The procedure was formulated following a general petition against travel restrictions faced by Palestinians who are labeled as "ISA precluded", when they reach a border crossing on their way abroad, and elsewhere.  This case points to one of the procedure's major deficiencies – it does not address urgent circumstances. The procedure stipulates a maximum period of eight weeks in which to review the challenge.

In early October, HaMoked appealed to the head of the Bethlehem DCO, requesting to expedite the handling of the urgent request. Time passed by with no reply. Due to the urgency, and hoping to prevent the loss of the academic year, HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ), demanding the military allow the student to leave for Jordan, and also disclose the grounds for refusal.

In response to the petition, the state attorney's office informed that security officials claim "the petitioner is in contact with terrorists and there is concern that his leaving abroad would jeopardize the security of the area". Spelled out, the military's refusal to allow the youth to leave - liable to drastically alter his future – is not based on a security risk posed by his own actions, but rather by the actions of others. In response, HaMoked stated that since the petitioner's father had been previously held in administrative detention, it is hardly surprising that the petitioner maintains "contact" with people dubbed terrorists by the military. The youth himself, however, was never arrested nor interrogated, and moreover, had left for Jordan in the previous year, without any hindrance.

At the end of the proceeding, after reviewing the "classified material" pertaining to the petitioner, the justices declared that the military ban is justified, nonetheless, they stated that the "door should not be shut", instructing the state to reassess the case of the petitioner again in a year's time, if no additional material concerning the petitioner comes up in the duration. In an exceptional move, the justices ordered to suspend the petition, and set a hearing to review the case in September 2011, if the ban of exit still stands.
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