Landmark Israeli Supreme Court Cases: Rights & Equality

Landmark Israeli Supreme Court Cases

Kol Ha'am vs. Minister of Interior (1953) - Freedom of Expression

Background: A Communist newspaper published a harsh, unverified article against Israel and the US. The Minister of Interior decided to shut down the newspaper for 15 days.

Results: Justice Agranat ruled in favor of the newspaper.

Meaning: The Minister must consider whether it is probable that the publication will endanger public peace (Probability Test) and that the danger is so grave as to justify the use of such drastic tools (Damage Test), i.e., "Likely to endanger public peace."

• A mere tendency to endanger public peace will not suffice to fulfill that requirement.

Danilovich vs. El Al (1994) - Right to Equality

Background: Jonathan Danilovich, employed by El Al as a flight attendant, had a stable relationship with another man. Under a collective agreement, El Al gave every permanent employee a free airline ticket every year for the employee and "his/her spouse (husband or wife)." Danilovich asked El Al to give him a free ticket for his partner, but his request was denied.

Results: The court ruled that this was discrimination. Justice Kedmi opposed.

Meaning: A distinction based on the difference between a homosexual and heterosexual relationship is unjustified in the context of employee benefits. Similar rulings apply to lesbian couple adoption.

Mizrahi Bank vs. Migdal Kfar Shitufi (1995) - Violation of Basic Law: Human Dignity & Liberty (Right to Property)

Background: The Knesset enacted a law changing economic arrangements in the agricultural sector to help it recover from a financial crisis. The Knesset postponed the debt payments of the agricultural private sector so these small businesses would not be liquidated by the banks. The bank claimed that, in accordance with Basic Law: Human Dignity & Liberty, this law violated their right to property (the debt), making it unconstitutional.

Results: The Court ruled in favor of Mizrahi Bank.

Meaning: This case marked a Constitutional Revolution. The Knesset has the power to pass a state constitution.

• 1992 Basic Laws are supreme to regular legislation.
• Identification of a Basic Law is formal.
• A "regular law" cannot infringe upon a human right protected by the 1992 Basic Laws unless it fulfills the requirements of the limitation clause.
• The court has the power of judicial review.

Rav Elba vs. State of Israel (1995) - Freedom of Expression

Background: A Rabbi published an article describing how and when it is allowed to kill gentiles. He appealed to the High Court of Justice after losing the initial case.

Results: Justice Aharon Barak upheld the conviction, resulting in imprisonment.

Meaning: This case dealt with incitement to racism, where actual harm can result. The prohibition of the publication is against freedom of expression, BUT it serves an appropriate purpose: the prevention of racism, the preservation of human dignity and equality, and the preservation of public peace. Freedom of expression CAN be restricted if it incites racism.