Case Number

HCJ 4885/03, HCJ 4900/03, HCJ 4899/03, HCJ 4918/03

Date Decided

9-27-2004

Decision Type

Original

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

Petition to the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice

Facts: The Knesset enacted the Israel Economic Recovery Programme (Legislative Amendments for Achieving Budgetary Goals and the Economic Policy for the 2003 and 2004 Fiscal Years) Law, 5763-2003, which contained, in chapter 11, major changes to the regulation of the agricultural sector in Israel. This law, which contains many diverse provisions, was passed in a rushed process with very little debate either in the House or the committees of the Knesset.

The petitioners claimed, for a wide variety of reasons, that chapter 11, the ‘Agriculture Chapter,’ should be declared void. Inter alia, they argued that the Agriculture Chapter violated basic rights, such as property rights and the freedom of occupation, and that the process that led to its legislation was so defective that it ought to be declared void.

Held: The court found that the Israel Economic Recovery Programme Law was an excessive and improper use of the legislative mechanism of the Arrangements Law type and criticized the use of such expedited legislative mechanisms. The court held, however, that judicial review of the legislative process in Israel does not recognize a ground of a lack of ‘legislative due process,’ and the court will only intervene if there is a defect in the legislative process that ‘goes to the heart of the process.’ A defect that ‘goes to the heart of the process’ is a defect that involves a severe and substantial violation of the basic principles of the legislative process in Israel's parliamentary and constitutional system. In this case, there was no such defect, and therefore no judicial intervention was justified.

While the Agriculture Chapter did violate basic rights, such as property rights and the freedom of occupation, the manner in which it did so, according to the court’s interpretation of the law, was not disproportionate, and therefore the violations fell within the scope of the limitations clause in the Basic Laws.

Keywords

Administrative Law -- Discretion, Constitutional Law -- Judicial Review, Constitutional Law -- Legislation, Constitutional Law -- Separation of Powers

Download

Share

COinS