Case Number
HCJ 9060/08
Date Decided
5-7-2012
Decision Type
Original
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
In HCJ 9060/08 petitions were filed with the High Court against the illegal construction of structures on a site next to the Beit El settlement. Following a series of hearings the State notified the court of its adoption of a policy concerning the demolition of illegal building on private land and the arrangement of construction on State land. As a result of this policy, illegal construction located on private land would be removed. The Court gave a judgment giving effect to the State's undertaking to ensure the removal of the illegal structures within one year of the filing of said notification.
One year later the State filed an application to "renew the hearing of the petition" based on the desire to reconsider the manner of implementing the policy regarding illegal construction on private land. The State's reasons for the application were: (a) that an action had been filed in the District Court concerning the substantive question of the ownership and hence the legality of the structures and the inappropriateness of ignoring the existence of a pending action which was of clear relevance to the demolition order; (b) that the examination of the structures under adjudication in the petition could not be separated from illegal construction in other locations. The policy relating to priorities in enforcement of the law in the Zone should therefore be reconsidered, keeping in mind planning and property aspects and other political, public and operational aspects. The State therefore requested that the court grant a delay to enable the formulation of an updated policy, during which the structures would not be removed.
The petitioners opposed the request, arguing that the State's failure to fulfill its obligation contained in a judgment constituted contempt of court, that there was no procedural proceeding that enabled the opening of a completed proceeding, and that the State's change of position was politically motivated and was not supported on legal grounds.
In his decision of 7 May 2012 President Grunis ruled that there were no grounds for reopening the hearing on the petition. President Grunis ruled that the principle of res judicata does not allow the opening of an already completed proceeding. The principle of res judicata is based on a number of public interests. It enables the delineation of the borders of the legal proceeding, it assists in clarifying the legal position, it prevents the inconveniencing of litigants with the same legal issue and repeat litigation, and it ensures the proper functioning of the judicial system. From a constitutional perspective, the principle of res judicata also reflects the separation of powers between the branches of government in the sense that it signifies the termination of role of the judicial branch in the matter, given that the execution of judgment is a matter for the executive authority.
The President further noted that apart from the res judicata issue, the State’s request to open the case also undermined the basic principle of fulfillment of judgments that ensures that the judicial proceeding does not become a meaningless, farcical proceeding, but rather that its results be executed within the time period prescribed by the court. This principle is particularly relevant when the body charged with execution of the judgment is the state. Finally, a change of policy is not grounds for deviating from the principle of res judicata, for otherwise the court would be required to reopen proceedings whenever a change in policy was decided on.
Keywords
Constitutional Law -- Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, Constitutional Law -- Separation of Powers, International Law -- Occupied territories
Recommended Citation
Grunis, Asher; Joubran, Salim; and Vogelman, Uzi, "Yassin v. Minister of Defense" (2012). Translated Opinions. 404.
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/iscp-opinions/404
