A Palestinian who lives near Jenin owns some farmland in the village of Barta'a. He worked his land without any trouble until Israel completed the
separation wall in this area, in 2003. Once the wall was completed, the farmland was trapped in what Israel calls the "seam zone", the part of the West Bank that remained beyond the wall, and the man needed military-issued permits in order to access his land.
In December 2012, when the last "seam zone" permit he had expired, he applied to have it renewed. After his application, as well as inquires HaMoked made in this matter were not answered by the army for about two months,
HaMoked filed a petition with the High Court of Justice. HaMoked asked the court to instruct the military to issue the petitioner a two-year permit to access his land, as required by
the Standing Orders in the Seam Zone.
HaMoked argued that the army was severely, unreasonably and disproportionately violating the petitioner's right to property, freedom of occupation and freedom of movement. HaMoked also argued that the departure from the schedules that have been established for processing permit applications contravened the law, the judgments of the court and the army's own orders and protocols.
In its response, the state said that the application was refused on January 15, 2013 due to "unlawful entry into the seam zone not bay way of designated crossings and remainder in the seam zone for an unknown period of time". The petitioner denied this allegation entirely. The state also said that it would, "despite the passage of time and on an ex gratia basis", allow the petitioner to challenge the rejection in front of a DCO hearing committee. Needless to say, despite the many communications addressed to it on this issue, the army did not bother notifying the applicant of the rejection before the petition was filed.
On April 29, 2013, the man went to the Jenin DCO to file a request for a hearing committee. To our surprise, instead of receiving his request for a hearing, the army gave him a permit to enter the "seam zone", but only for six months. HaMoked contacted the State Attorney's Office, asking to extend the permit to two years, in accordance with the provisions of the standing orders regarding owners of farmland. When the state refused to extend the permit "given the abuse of the previous permit", HaMoked insisted that the applicant be summoned to a hearing, where he would be able to exercise his right to present his case. At that point, the state said that following a re-evaluation, there was no longer any need for a hearing committee to review the matter and that he would receive a "permanent farmer permit" for two years, as requested. The accusation that he had abused the previous permit vanished.
On July 28, 2013, the man received the long awaited permit and HaMoked asked the petition be deleted. Given the army's failure to respond to the request on time, HaMoked asked the court issue a costs order against the state.
