The HCJ rejected HaMoked’s petition to suspend proceedings for the revocation of status of four East Jerusalem residents: “there is no doubt that the revocation of permanent residency visas of East Jerusalem residents raises constitutional and administrative issues of great weight”, but there is no room to address these issues in this framework
On November 23, 2015, HaMoked petitioned
the High Court of Justice (HCJ) to order the stay of the proceedings on the revocation of status of four suspected assailants from East Jerusalem; this, pending judgment in public petition HCJ 7803/06, dealing with the Minister of Interior’s discretion under the Entry into Israel Law, 1952, to revoke the status of permanent residents.
On December 10, 2015, in its response
to HaMoked’s petition, the state claimed the petition should be dismissed out of hand. The state held that the petition was “premature”, as it was filed before the Minister of Interior had made a decision on the four men’s case; as such, given the non-exhaustion of remedies vis-à-vis the administrative authority, the petition should not be considered at this stage. The state also argued that the petition did not concern any concrete circumstances or definite group of people; and that is was over-general, given that it effectively sought a sweeping interim court order that would completely ban the Minister of Interior from exercising his authority under the Entry into Israel Law on residents of East Jerusalem, pending judgment in the public petition, which would settle the question of the Minister’s authority.
On January 7, 2016, the HCJ summarily dismissed
the petition – which, it should be emphasized, was filed against launching of proceedings for the revocation of status of four East Jerusalem residents. Despite that, and although the court ruled that “there is no doubt that the revocation of permanent residency visas of East Jerusalem residents raises constitutional and administrative issues of great weight”, the justices concluded that there was no room to consider these principle issues in parallel to their consideration in the framework of the public petition.
In addressing the specific case of the four men now undergoing revocation proceedings – the opening of which the petition sought to challenge – the court ruled that the petition was premature and attended by non-exhaustion of remedies, given that the Minister of Interior had not yet issued final decision on their cases, and in one case, the oral review hearing had not yet been held.