| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| December 2. 2021. | HCJ 8196/21 | Supreme Court of Israel | Right to privacy; data protection | The Supreme Court of Israel held, that the use of modern technology for locate infected persons and those of contacted with them was constitutional especially in the light of the quick spread of the Omicron variant during the last months of 2021. | https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts%5C21%5C960%5C081%5Cz04&fileName=21081960.Z04&type=2 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/israel-supreme-court-israel-sitting-high-court-justice-hcj-819621-2021-12-02 | |||
| September 14. 2021. | HCJ 5322/21 M.C. v. Government of Israel | Supreme Court of Israel | Vaccination; equality; right to education; freedom of occupation | The Supreme Court of Israel held that the "green pass policy" making a differentiation between vaccinated, recovered and unvaccinated persons were reasonable and complying with the Constitution. | The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the so-called "green pass" policy, which made a differentiation between vaccinated, recovered and non-vacinated persons. According to the complaint, this measure infringed the right to equality, right to education and freedom of occupation. The distinctions are not based on objective professional and medical grounds just on prejudicial allegations, therefore, these are arbitrary classifications which target just to increase the number of vaccinated persons. The Supreme Court dismissed all claims and highlighted, that judges should not decide medical issues. Moreover, the claimants should approach first the Parliamentary Committee of Constitutional Affairs in the Knesset rather than the Supreme Court, therefore, not all the available remedies have been exhausted. For these reasons, the impugned measures did not violate any constitutional right, the claims were unfounded. | https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts%5C21%5C220%5C053%5Co09&fileName=21053220.O09&type=2 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/israel-supreme-court-israel-sitting-high-court-justice-hcj-532221-mc-v-government-israel | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-risk-regulation/article/abs/promoting-vaccination-from-a-human-rights-and-equity-perspective-lessons-from-the-israeli-green-pass/00F39BF3BE618A0996ABCD450E50E50A | |
| April 4. 2021. | HCJ 5469/20. | Supreme Court of Israel | Right to assembly; freedom of religion; freedom of movement | The Supreme Court of Israel confirmed the constitutionality of restricting the number of participants in demonstrations during the public health emergency, however, the ban on participating assemblies farther then 1000 meters from the place of residence was found to be void. | The Supreme Court of Israel heard six petitions jointly against the restrictions on freedom of gatherings including those with religious purposes during the second vawe of the Covid-19 pandemic. The impugned decrees imposed ban on assemblies more than 20 people outdoor and more than 10 persons indoor. Furthermore, participation in assemblies farther than 1000 meters from the place of residence was also prohibited. The Supreme Court argued, that the strict restrictions on assemblies was based on a proportionate assessment of the extra-ordinary circumstances, however, the ban on gatherings farther from 1000 meters from the place of residence meant a too severe interference even in the emergency context. Therefore, this measure was annulled, and the sanctions envisaged by the decree or even imposed on its basis should be also void. | https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts%5C20%5C690%5C054%5Cv13&fileName=20054690.V13&type=4 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/israel-supreme-court-israel-sitting-high-court-justice-hcj-546920-2021-04-04 | https://www.lawfareblog.com/return-balfour-israels-supreme-court-strikes-down-coronavirus-regulations-curbing-right-protest | |
| March 17. 2021. | HCJ 1107/21 O. S. v. Prime Minister | Supreme Court of Israel | Freedom of movement; right to equality | The Supreme Court of Israel striked down the Covid-related restrictions imposed on the entry into- and on the exit from Israel. | The Supreme Court of Israel examined the constitutionality of restrictions on entering into Israel and leaving the country, applicable during the first vawes of the global pandemic. The Supreme Court held, that maximizing the number of incoming passengers to 3000 persons, and the requirement of a priory approval for leaving the country without vaccination or certificate of recovery from Covid amount to unconstitutional limitations on freedom of movement and right to equality. The state interference has an undoubtedly legitimate interest, however, such severe restrictions should be based on the careful and continuous assessment of all the circumstances; with the growing intensity of the vaccination campaign, less restrictive alternatives might be also available. Therefore, the aforementioned restrictions set aside, and the Supreme Court directed the Government to implement new measures based on comprehensive and up-to-date factual basis. | https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts%5C21%5C070%5C011%5Cv12&fileName=21011070.V12&type=2 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/israel-supreme-court-sitting-high-court-justice-hcj-110721-o-s-v-prime-minister-2021-03 | ||
| March 1. 2021. | HCJ 6732/20 | Supreme Court of Israel | Right to privacy; data protection | The Supreme Court of Israel decided, that the use of tracking technological resources for the surveillance of Covid infected persons and those of contacting with them means an unconstitutional violation of right to privacy, the regulation should at least determine measurable criterion for using such instruments. | The Supreme Court of Israel heard a complaint against the governmental practice of using tracking technological resources during the first vawes of the global pandemic to ensure the proper surveillance of infected persons and those who contacting with them. According to the claimants, this measure meant a disproportionate restriction on right to privacy. The Supreme Court mostly shared the approach of the petitioners and striked down the impugned regulation. The use of technological resources as a tool of surveillance by general terms extend unreasonably and arbitrarily the scope of relying on such technologies. If the Government aims to involve these instruments in the surveillance mechanism in the future, at least measurable criterion should be provided by the relevant regulation, which should justify the application of these technological tools. This set of criteria would ensure that tracking devices should be used just as a complementary tool as a last resort, when for instance someone refuse to take part in Covid-19 investigations. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/israel-supreme-court-israel-sitting-high-court-justice-hcj-673220-2021-03-01 |
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-israel-surveillanc-idUSKCN2AT279; https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/01/972560038/israels-supreme-court-ends-spy-agency-cellphone-tracking-of-covid-19-infections |
||
| February 2. 2021. | HCJ 6939/20 Idan Mercaz Dimona Ltd. v. Government of Israel | Supreme Court of Israel | Right to conduct a business; right to equality | The Supreme Court of Israel held, that the unlimited possibilities of essential stores selling also non-essential products during the closure of primarily non-essential stores infringes right to conduct a business and right to equality, therefore this measure is unconstitutional. | The petitioners challenged a governmental regulation which divided the shops into essential and non-essential stores during the public health emergency. Essential stores were allowed to remain opened, while shops selling primarily non-essential products should have been closed during this period, moreover, the essential stores could also sell non-essential products without any restriction. The claimants argued, that the selling of non-essential products should be prohibited to avoid the cumulation of harms caused for the owners of non-essential services resulting the violation of right to conduct a business and right to equality. The Supreme Court accepted most of the arguments of the complainants and held, that the possibilities of essential stores to sell non-essential products should be at least restricted during the lockdown, and for this purpose, the relevant governmental regulations should be reviewed and amended accordingly. | https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts%5C20%5C390%5C069%5Co13&fileName=20069390.O13&type=2 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/israel-supreme-court-israel-sitting-high-court-justice-hcj-693920-idan-mercaz-dimona-ltd | https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/high-court-rules-essential-stores-cannot-sell-non-essential-products-657532 | |
| January 31. 2021. | HCJ 158/21 Physicians for Human Rights v. Minister of Public | Supreme Court of Israel | Right to life; right to equality; vaccination; prisoner's rights | The Supreme Court of Israel held, that the exclusion or disfavourable treatment of prisoners during the vaccination process is in conflict with right to equality. | The Supreme Court of Israel heard an application lodged against the decision of the Ministry of Public Security to prohibit the vaccination of prisoners until the immunization of the whole prison staff. The claimants held, that the decision of the minister is in conflict with the prioritization set by the public health ministry and infringes right to equality, therefore, older prisoners or detained persons with additional illnesses should enjoy the same rank in the prioritization as other persons. The Supreme Court acknowledged in its judgment, that after the submission of the petition, vaccination was started also for prisoners, therefore, the petition was not relevant anymore. However, the decision of the minister was beyond his competence, while his measure meant a too severe restriction of prisoner's rights. | https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts%5C21%5C580%5C001%5Co06&fileName=21001580.O06&type=2 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/israel-supreme-court-israel-sitting-high-court-justice-hcj-15821-physicians-human-rights |
https://www.timesofisrael.com/human-rights-groups-petition-high-court-to-force-israel-to-vaccinate-inmates/; https://www.nif.org/stories/human-rights-democracy/securing-vaccinations-in-israeli-prisons/ |
|
| December 3. 2020. | HCJ 5314/20 | Supreme Court of Israel | Criminal law; emergency regulation | The Supreme Court of Israel considered, that the emergency regulations issued by the Government during the first vawes of the global pandemic and the fines and penalties based on it were constitutional despite a certain level of wagueness and uncertainty in its wording. | The Supreme Court of Israel heard a petition challenging the legality of emergency regulations issued by the Government during the first vawes of the Covid-19 pandemic. The claimants also requested the annulement of all fines imposed on the basis of the emergency regulations. The Supreme Court argued, that emergency regulations should prevail over ordinary laws unless the law explicitly blocks its amendment with emergency regulations. The Penal Code has not provided such a prohibition, therefore, the Government had unlimited power to enact temporary measures and maintain their applicability until the end of the extra-ordinary period. For this reason, the governmental regulations were constitutional. Moreover, the Supreme Court also rejected the claim to nullify all fines and other sanctions imposed on the basis of the emergency orders due to the illegality of these regulations and also due to their wague and uncertain wording. The Supreme Court acknowledged certain level of ambiguity in the text of the emergency regulations, while also disapproved the governmental practice to add or deduct administrative offences and criminal sanctions with a very short notice. However, according to the Supreme Court, these discrepancies shall not question the constitutionality of the whole emergency regulation. | https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts%5C20%5C140%5C053%5Ce08&fileName=20053140.E08&type=2 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/israel-supreme-court-israel-sitting-high-court-justice-hcj-531420-2020-12-03 | ||
| July 27. 2020. | HCJ 1633/20. | The Supreme Court of Israel | Freedom to conduct a business; labor law | The Supreme Court of Israel decided, that the duty on employers to pay sick leave for quarantined employees close contact of Covid-19 persons but not contaminated themselves is unconstitutional, the Government shall enact a new regulation on this matter. | The Supreme Court of Israel heard a petition against a public health ministry order providing certificate for all quarantined persons including close contacts of Covid-19 infected persons who themselves were not contaminated. The certificate classified these persons as sick ones, as a consequence, employers should have paid the sick leave for these quarantined persons even if they were not infected by the virus and not covered by the definition of sickness provided by Israeli labor law. The claimants held, that this mandate on employers amounts to an unconstitutional interference into right to conduct a business, therefore, it should be repealed as well as due compensation should be provided for the employers concerned. The Supreme Court agreed with the petition and nullified the impugned measure which would become invalid within 2 months of the publication of the judgment. The Government was also directed to enact a new regulation on this matter. | https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts%5C20%5C330%5C016%5Cf16&fileName=20016330.F16&type=2 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/israel-supreme-court-israel-sitting-high-court-justice-hcj-163320-2020-07-27 | https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/israelis-in-quarantine-to-get-equal-support-from-both-state-and-employer-649163 | |
| April 26. 2020. | HCJ 2109/20 B. | Supreme Court of Israel | Human dignity; right to privacy; data protection; freedom of the press | The Supreme Court of Israel held, that the use of tracing technologies during the first vawe of the Covid-19 pandemic by the Israel Security Agency would require parliamentary authorization rather than a governmental decision, therefore, this measure should be repealed. Moreover, the contact tracing of journalists should be subject to the consent of the journalist, without this, any journalist should undergo an individual epidemiological investigation and would be asked to inform any sources with whom he was in contact over the 14 days prior to his diagnosis. | The Supreme Court of Israel heard a petition against the authorization of the Israel Security Agency during the first vawes of the Covid-19 pandemic to tracing contacts of Covid-19 infected persons as well as their close contacts. The petitions argued, that the decision was not based on a proper authorization, moreover, it amounts to a violation of human dignity and right to privacy. The claimants also raised, that journalists should be exempted from the scope of this mechanism due to the high importance of freedom of the press. The Supreme Court of Israel considered, that the governmental measure should be cancelled as unconstitutional, its enactment would require prior legislation. Moreover, the contact tracing of journalists should be subject from consent of the journalist concerned; without his/her agreement, an individual epidemiological investigation should be ordered. As part of this mechanism, the journalist should be asked to inform the sources with whom he/she contacted within the last 14 days from his/her diagnosis. |
https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts%5C20%5C090%5C021%5Cv09&fileName=20021090.V09&type=2; https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/upload/opinions/Ben%20Meir%20v.%20Prime%20Minister1.pdf |
https://www.timesofisrael.com/high-court-shin-bet-surveillance-of-virus-carriers-must-be-enshrined-in-law/ | ||
| April 14. 2020. | HCJ 2359/20. | Supreme Court of Israel | Right to equality; discrimination; Covid-19 testing | The Supreme Court of Israel held, that the establishment of test complexes and mobile systems respected right to equality of the Arab minority in Israel, and did not constitute a discrimination against this part of the population. | The Supreme Court of Israel heard a petition against the nation-wide establishment of Covid-19 test complexes and mobile systems. The claimants argued, that such services were not provided close to the bedouin localities, therefore, these communities were discriminated by the governmental authorities, testing was not provided on an equal basis. The Supreme Court rejected the argument of the applicants and explained, that their submission was grounded exclusively on the transportation difficulties faced by the Bedouin communities. However, the consideration of such logistical implications should remain beyond the margin of movement of Governmental authorities, the Supreme Court should not interfere in this regard. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/israel-supreme-court-israel-sitting-high-court-justice-hcj-235920-2020-04-14 | https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/9948; https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/viewpoints/covid-19-roundup | ||
| April 7. 2020. | HCJ 2435/20 Y.L. v. Prime Minister | Supreme Court of Israel | Right to life; freedom of movement; right to occupation; right to education; human dignity | The Supreme Court of Israel confirmed the constitutionality of declaring the city of Bnei-Brak as an area with restricted access during the Covid-19 pandemic, the petition challenging this measure was rejected accordingly. | The Supreme Court of Israel heard a claim against declaring by the Government the city of Bnei-Brak as an area with restricted access during the public health emergency. The petitioners considered that the decision lacked objective justification, and it amounted to a disproportionate restriction on right to occupation, right to education, right to human dignity, right to life and freedom of movement of local residents. The Supreme Court rejected the submission and upheld the validity of the curfew order. The Supreme Court stated, that the measure was rendered based on a series of proessional assessments analysing the public health concerns, while the huge and reasonable fear from the rapid spread of the Covid-19 pandemic meant a legitimate purpose of the far-reaching governmental interference. | https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/yedidya-loewenthal-adv-v-prime-minister | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/israel-supreme-court-israel-sitting-high-court-justice-hcj-243520-yl-v-prime- | https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/viewpoints/closure-bnei-brak-and-ramot-due-coronavirus | |
