Case Number

HCJ 5026/04

Date Decided

4-4-2005

Decision Type

Original

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

Facts: The petitioner, a company that owns a chain of furniture shops, was fined for employing Jews on the Sabbath, contrary to the Hours of Work and Rest Law, 5711-1951. Subsequently, the petitioner applied under the law for a permit to employ Jews on the Sabbath, but this application was rejected by the first respondent. The petitioner therefore filed a petition in the Supreme Court, arguing that the first respondent’s refusal to grant a permit was unreasonable in the extreme, in view of the economic loss that the petitioner was caused by not being able to employ Jews on the Sabbath. The petitioner further argued that the Hours of Work and Rest Law was unconstitutional, since it violated the basic human right of freedom of occupation.

Held: The Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, which was originally enacted in 1992, has since 2002 applied not only to laws passed after the Basic Law was introduced but also to laws passed before it came into effect. Therefore the Hours of Work and Rest Law, 5711-1951, is subject to constitutional scrutiny under the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation.

The provisions of the Hours of Work and Rest Law concerning the weekly day of rest satisfy the constitutional tests, since they befit the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, are intended for a proper purpose and are not excessive.

The refusal of the first respondent to grant the first petitioner a permit to employ Jews on the Sabbath was not unreasonable, since the first petitioner failed to present a factual basis to show that its activity during the hours of the weekly rest was essential for the public or a part thereof.

Keywords

Constitutional Law -- Freedom of Religion, Jewish Law -- Shabbat

Download

Share

COinS