The HCJ rejected the petitions against the removal orders issued by the military against three East Jerusalem residents: the orders – which mean the expulsion of the men from their city – remain intact המוקד להגנת הפרט
25.03.2015
The HCJ rejected the petitions against the removal orders issued by the military against three East Jerusalem residents: the orders – which mean the expulsion of the men from their city – remain intact
Print Print
Share
On March 16, 2015, the High Court of Justice held a hearing in four petitions filed by HaMoked on behalf of three East Jerusalem residents against whom the military had issued orders for removal from their city – which simply means the expulsion of the residents from their city; this, given the fact that East Jerusalem is occupied territory for all intents and purposes, and that the transfer of protected persons from occupied territory is absolutely prohibited under the Geneva Convention. One of the expelled men was simultaneously also banned by the military from staying in the West Bank.

One of HaMoked's arguments in the petitions was that the Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945 – pursuant to which the orders had been issued – were no longer valid. HaMoked also claimed that the orders' duration and scope were unreasonable and disproportionate; furthermore, that the removed individuals' right to plead their cases had not been upheld, as hearings had taken place only after the orders were issued and effective.

In March 19, 2015, the HCJ dismissed the four petitions. The court accepted the state's position that the Regulations were still valid. The court, however, reiterated its past pronouncement that the time had come for the Defence (Emergency) Regulations to be cancelled, and advised the legislator to replace them with new legislation. The court also ruled that given the classified security information ascribed to the expelled men, the issuance of the removal orders pursuant to the Regulations was a proportionate step. The court, accepting HaMoked's claim as to the belated date of the military hearings, instructed the military not to do so in future, but held that this fact did not justify intervention in the military's decision to issue the orders in this case.
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