The HCJ rejects request for urgent hearing in the petition to stay proceedings for the revocation of suspected assailants’ status: “given the load upon the calendar of this court, the motion […] cannot be granted” המוקד להגנת הפרט
عر HE wheel chair icon
כפתור חיפוש
תמונה ללא תיאור
25.11.2015
The HCJ rejects request for urgent hearing in the petition to stay proceedings for the revocation of suspected assailants’ status: “given the load upon the calendar of this court, the motion […] cannot be granted”
The HCJ rejects request for urgent hearing in the petition to stay proceedings for the revocation of suspected assailants’ status: “given the load upon the calendar of this court, the motion […] cannot be granted”
On November 23, 2015, HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) to order a stay of the proceedings for revoking the Israeli status of four East Jerusalem residents suspected of carrying out attacks against Israelis, pending final decision on the public petition on the matter (HCJ 7803/06). HaMoked also requested that the court issue a temporary injunction, halting the revocation proceedings pending judgment in the current petition, filed on behalf of the four. This, not only given the proceedings’ fateful repercussions for the four, but more so given that the Ministry of Interior had stipulated that objections to the intended revocations were to be filed until December 8, 2015 – an unreasonably early date, to which HaMoked had objected in its letter to the Ministry of Interior.

However, the court completely disregarded the request for temporary injunction, and instead, gave the state 30 days to submit its response to the petition – thus emptying all meaning of HaMoked's claim about the tight schedule the Ministry had imposed on the petitioners.

In view of the court’s decision, HaMoked filed an urgent motion for clarification, stressing that “in the present situation, where the Respondents have already opened proceedings to revoke the permanent visas of the petitioners and have allowed them to submit their arguments against the decisions until December 8, 2015, it appears that the current decision, whereby the Respondents are to respond to the petition within 30 days, will render the petition empty of all meaning”. HaMoked asked the court to clarify the fate of the request for temporary injunction, and – should the court refuse it – to schedule an urgent hearing in the petition, prior to December 8, 2015.

On November 24, 2015, the court issued its decision, ruling that “in the circumstances of the case, I see no call for issuing the requested temporary injunction. Additionally, given the load upon the calendar of this court, the motion to set an urgent hearing in the petition cannot be granted”.
Print Print
Share
On November 23, 2015, HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) to order a stay of the proceedings for revoking the Israeli status of four East Jerusalem residents suspected of carrying out attacks against Israelis, pending final decision on the public petition on the matter (HCJ 7803/06). HaMoked also requested that the court issue a temporary injunction, halting the revocation proceedings pending judgment in the current petition, filed on behalf of the four. This, not only given the proceedings’ fateful repercussions for the four, but more so given that the Ministry of Interior had stipulated that objections to the intended revocations were to be filed until December 8, 2015 – an unreasonably early date, to which HaMoked had objected in its letter to the Ministry of Interior.

However, the court completely disregarded the request for temporary injunction, and instead, gave the state 30 days to submit its response to the petition – thus emptying all meaning of HaMoked's claim about the tight schedule the Ministry had imposed on the petitioners.

In view of the court’s decision, HaMoked filed an urgent motion for clarification, stressing that “in the present situation, where the Respondents have already opened proceedings to revoke the permanent visas of the petitioners and have allowed them to submit their arguments against the decisions until December 8, 2015, it appears that the current decision, whereby the Respondents are to respond to the petition within 30 days, will render the petition empty of all meaning”. HaMoked asked the court to clarify the fate of the request for temporary injunction, and – should the court refuse it – to schedule an urgent hearing in the petition, prior to December 8, 2015.

On November 24, 2015, the court issued its decision, ruling that “in the circumstances of the case, I see no call for issuing the requested temporary injunction. Additionally, given the load upon the calendar of this court, the motion to set an urgent hearing in the petition cannot be granted”.
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