HaMoked to the HCJ on the issue of legality of punitive demolition: the time is ripe for a discussion of the principle issues before an expanded panel, in view of the fact that six of the justices are in favour of revisiting the prevailing case law המוקד להגנת הפרט
عر HE wheel chair icon
כפתור חיפוש
תמונה ללא תיאור
27.03.2016
HaMoked to the HCJ on the issue of legality of punitive demolition: the time is ripe for a discussion of the principle issues before an expanded panel, in view of the fact that six of the justices are in favour of revisiting the prevailing case law
HaMoked to the HCJ on the issue of legality of punitive demolition: the time is ripe for a discussion of the principle issues before an expanded panel, in view of the fact that six of the justices are in favour of revisiting the prevailing case law
In a succession of judgments issued recently in HaMoked’s petitions against punitive demolitions, six of the justices of the High Court of Justice (HCJ) expressed reservations over the prevailing policy and the adherence to the current case law upholding it.

Following the express calls of three justices in judgments issued the previous week that the issue should be revisited by an expanded panel, on March 27, 2016, HaMoked filed an application for expanding the panel sitting in the three petitions and also to review the principle issue of the legality of using Regulation 119. The petitions were filed against the military’s plan to seal the openings of the homes of three Palestinian families from East Jerusalem, whose sons are standing trial for complicity in a stone-throwing attack on September 13, 2015 in Jerusalem.

HaMoked noted that recently a growing number of HCJ justices voiced reservations over the use of Regulation 119, pursuant to which the military commander orders the punitive demolition of homes in the OPT. Thus said Justice Vogelman in a judgement issued March 23, 2016: “despite my position that for as long as the rule has not been changed it should be followed, I added that I thought it would be advisable to revisit said rule in a bid to fully examine all issues which may arise under the local law as well as all issues which may arise under international law”. In a judgment issued the following day, Justice Joubran, in the minority, said: “I must admit and cannot deny the fact that I am not comfortable with the use of the authority established in Regulation 119 […] The exercise of the authority raises difficulties under local law and international law, which in my opinion have not yet been thoroughly addressed by the court in its judgments, particularly in view of the increasing use of this authority […]”.

Despite the fact that some six months ago the HCJ rejected HaMoked’s motion for a further hearing on the issue (HCJFH 360/15), the organization considers that “in view of the many judicial opinions referred to above which have accumulated since then, a critical mass has been created which requires that the general issues be discussed by an expanded panel”.
Print Print
Share
In a succession of judgments issued recently in HaMoked’s petitions against punitive demolitions, six of the justices of the High Court of Justice (HCJ) expressed reservations over the prevailing policy and the adherence to the current case law upholding it.

Following the express calls of three justices in judgments issued the previous week that the issue should be revisited by an expanded panel, on March 27, 2016, HaMoked filed an application for expanding the panel sitting in the three petitions and also to review the principle issue of the legality of using Regulation 119. The petitions were filed against the military’s plan to seal the openings of the homes of three Palestinian families from East Jerusalem, whose sons are standing trial for complicity in a stone-throwing attack on September 13, 2015 in Jerusalem.

HaMoked noted that recently a growing number of HCJ justices voiced reservations over the use of Regulation 119, pursuant to which the military commander orders the punitive demolition of homes in the OPT. Thus said Justice Vogelman in a judgement issued March 23, 2016: “despite my position that for as long as the rule has not been changed it should be followed, I added that I thought it would be advisable to revisit said rule in a bid to fully examine all issues which may arise under the local law as well as all issues which may arise under international law”. In a judgment issued the following day, Justice Joubran, in the minority, said: “I must admit and cannot deny the fact that I am not comfortable with the use of the authority established in Regulation 119 […] The exercise of the authority raises difficulties under local law and international law, which in my opinion have not yet been thoroughly addressed by the court in its judgments, particularly in view of the increasing use of this authority […]”.

Despite the fact that some six months ago the HCJ rejected HaMoked’s motion for a further hearing on the issue (HCJFH 360/15), the organization considers that “in view of the many judicial opinions referred to above which have accumulated since then, a critical mass has been created which requires that the general issues be discussed by an expanded panel”.
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