Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Litigating Human Rights Violations Through Tort Law: Israeli Law Perspective

  • Chapter
Damages for Violations of Human Rights

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 9))

Abstract

Israeli law supplies multiple legal sources for protection of human rights: constitutional protection, criminal protection, administrative protection and civil law- mostly tort law- protection. These sources supply protection against both public (state and public authorities, bodies, officers) and private (personal as well as legal entities) violations of human rights. This papers deals with the relevant causes of action by which Israeli courts compensate for the harm caused by human rights violations. We shall mainly deal with tort law, yet since the interplay among the multiple sources of protection is sometime complicated and unclear we shall have to relate to constitutional/penal law as well, but only when directly relevant to the main issue of the paper. Two main consequences follow. First, the current law in Israel portrays a very well equipped toolkit. Second, nevertheless, case law still grapples with the idea of finding a well -balanced avenue to impose absolute liability for violations of human rights regardless of fault, negligence or any other deviation from reasonable conduct on the part of the state and its organs and/or officers in certain limited type of circumstances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Originally a British Ordinance, which was adopted by the Israeli legislator in 1948 when the state of Israel was founded.

  2. 2.

    For additional discussion, see Loubser and Gidron (2011).

  3. 3.

    See: Land Ordinance (Acquisition for Public Purposes) (1943); Design and Construction Act (1965). (hereinafter: Design and Construction Act).

  4. 4.

    The Property Tax and Compensation Fund Act (1961).

  5. 5.

    MCA 5902/12 Menahel Keren Pitzuim Vepeolot Eiva v. Kibutz Nirim (23/01/2014).

  6. 6.

    Approximately 10,400 Euro.

  7. 7.

    5(b) the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Entertainment Sites and Public Places Act (2000).

  8. 8.

    Minimum Wage Act (1987).

  9. 9.

    Class Action Act (2006), 2nd supplement. (hereinafter: Class Action Act).

  10. 10.

    See, in general: CA 1977/97 Barzani v. Bezek Inc., PD 55(4) 584 (2001); CA 7808/06 Sarah Levi v. Israel (2012); CA 458/06 Shtendel v. Bezek Int’l Inc. (2009).

  11. 11.

    See: Class Action Act, 2nd supplement, which includes consumers’ claims.

  12. 12.

    CC (Tel Aviv) 2061-06 Negler v. Strauss-Elite Inc. (10.01.2011).

  13. 13.

    Approximately 1,780,000 Euro.

  14. 14.

    CA 10085/08 Tnouva v. Rabi Estate (04.12.2011), hereinafter as Tnouva.

  15. 15.

    Approximately 8,100,000 Euro.

  16. 16.

    §3 Class Action Act.

  17. 17.

    HCJ 2171/06 Cohen v. Chairman of the Knesset (2011).

  18. 18.

    Tort Ordinance [New Version]. (hereinafter: Tort Ordinance).

  19. 19.

    CA 915/91 Israel v. Itzhack Levy, PD 48(3) 45 (1994), hereinafter: Levy.

  20. 20.

    CA 7008/09 El Rakhim v. El Kader (2012), §47; CA 2648/09 Gil Import Inc. v. Israel (2011), §14.

  21. 21.

    International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women ; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ; Convention on the Rights of the Child; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

  22. 22.

    Except the Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflicts.

  23. 23.

    See, Chief Meir Justice Shamgar in S.C 785/87 Affo v. Commander of l.D.F Forces P.D. 42(2)4,40.

  24. 24.

    As mentioned above, the basic rights explicitly included in the Basic Laws are limited. They do not include many of the constitutional rights mentioned in the charters, despite article 2 of the ICCPR stating that all State Parties are required to adopt measures necessary to give effect to the rights recognised.

  25. 25.

    See particularly in regard to tort legislation, AC (Tel-Aviv) 4289/89 Shalom v. Attorney General, para. 22.

  26. 26.

    This was the argument put forward in CC 1461/00 The State of Israeli v. Dirani; however, the Court of Appeal and in an appeal also the Supreme Court (CA 993/06 The State of Israel v. Dirani) did not have a chance to decide on the merits as they were preoccupied rejecting an arguments that the applicant (Dirani) was an alien enemy and therefore did not have standing before Israeli courts. This decision is now awaiting judgment before a panel of the Supreme Court.

  27. 27.

    See §2 Civil Tort (State liability) Act (1952) (hereinafter: Civil Tort Act) states that the State is liable as any incorporated body.

  28. 28.

    §3-5B Civil Tort Act; CC (Haifa) 371/05 Rachel Aliene Corrie Estate v. Israel (2012), available at ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/18/ask-and-you-shall-receive-finally-an-english-translation-of-the-rachel-corrie-judgment. Accessed 4 March 2015.

  29. 29.

    See §7A, 7B Tort Ordinance.

  30. 30.

    See §35–36 Tort Ordinance.

  31. 31.

    [1932] UKHL 100.

  32. 32.

    Approximately 17,655 Euro.

  33. 33.

    See §77 Criminal Act (1977).

  34. 34.

    See CA (beer Sheva) 228/09 Israel v. Ran Tzuref (2010).

  35. 35.

    CA 3806/06 Ploni v. Plonit (2009).

  36. 36.

    CA 294/91 Kadisha inc. v. Kastenbaum, PD 46(2) 464 (1992).

  37. 37.

    Loubser and Gidron (2011); Barak-Erez and Gilead (2007) 252–275; Barak-Erez and Gilead (2009) 11–37.

  38. 38.

    “It is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right when with-held must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” (Blackstone, William. 1765. Commentaries on the Laws of England 23).

  39. 39.

    See §15(d) of Basic Law: The Judiciary .

  40. 40.

    See §32 Basic Law: The Government .

  41. 41.

    §2 Tort Ordinance; and compare with Palmer (2012) 577.

  42. 42.

    1992.

  43. 43.

    See CA 243/83 Jerusalem Municipality v. Gordon, PD 39(1) 113, 123–124 (1985), hereinafter: Gordon; Mishael.Cheshin (1968) 346.

  44. 44.

    Except for the tort of fraud and causing breach of contract, which were designated to protect commercial interests rather than any specific human right.

  45. 45.

    See Tadesky et al. (1977) 401.

  46. 46.

    §2 Civil Tort.

  47. 47.

    Gidron (2012) 443–512; Zandberg (1994) 591.

  48. 48.

    Gordon, supra note 43; CA 558/84 Carmeli v. Israel , PD 41(3) 757 (1987); CA 593/81 Mifaley Rekhev Ashdod v. Adam Tzizik, PD 41(3) 169 (1987); FA (Jerusalem) 29170/05 Anat Elimelekh’s estate v. David Apotha’s estate (2011); CA 8489/12 Ploni v. Ploni (2013), hereinafter: Ploni.

  49. 49.

    Gidron (2008) 95–185; Gidron, supra note 43; Zandberg (1994); Loubser and Gidron (2011).

  50. 50.

    “The reasonable expectation test: could the plaintiff, as a reasonable person, anticipate that his/her recklessness will cause the damage” (CA 4486/11 Ploni v. Ploni [2011] §10, hereinafter: CA 4486/11).

  51. 51.

    Gilead and Guttel (2004) 385.

  52. 52.

    §76(1) Tort Ordinance.

  53. 53.

    Meanwhile, most courts, including the majority of the judges of the Supreme Court, continue to rule according to the original accepted model.

  54. 54.

    Ploni, supra note 48.

  55. 55.

    Caparo Industries plc. v. Dickman [1990] UKHL 2.

  56. 56.

    Ploni, supra note 48; Compare with Levy, supra note 19.

  57. 57.

    §62 Tort Ordinance.

  58. 58.

    Ploni, supra note 48.

  59. 59.

    Ploni, supra note 48, §13 to Justice Amit ruling.

  60. 60.

    CA 8650/08 Refaelov v. Israel (2013), hereinafter: Refaelov.

  61. 61.

    Approximately 117,145 Euro.

  62. 62.

    Refaelov, supra note 60, §18 of Justice Meltzer ruling.

  63. 63.

    CA 2781/93 Daaka v. “Carmel” Hospital, PD 53(4) 526 (1999), hereinafter: Daaka.

  64. 64.

    id.

  65. 65.

    id.

  66. 66.

    For example: CA 11152/04 Ploni v. Migdal Insurance Inc., PD 61(3) 310 (2006); CC (Tel Aviv) 2727/06 Plonit v. Ploni (2011); CC (Tel Aviv) 55775/05 Plonit v. Ploni (2013); CA 3806/06 Ploni v. Plonit (2009); LA 628/07 (State) Almoni v. Plonit (2009).

  67. 67.

    For example: MFA 7071/13 Ploni v. Plonit (2013); FA (Haifa) 23464-10-09 A. S. v. D. S. (2011); FC (Jerusalem) 39371-09-12S. B.A. v. I. T. B. A. (2013); FC (Jerusalem) 22970-11-11 A. S. v. M. S. (2013); FC (Jerusalem) 46820-03-10 Almoni v. Plonit (2012); FC (Jerusalem) 22158/97 M. T. v. M. T. (2011); FC (Tel Aviv) 24782/98 N. S. v. N. I. (2008).

  68. 68.

    For example: CA 4584/10 Israel v. Shovar (2012); Tnouva, supra note 14; CA 2781/93 Daaka v. Carmel Hospital, PD 53(4) 526 (1999); CA 2034/98 Amin v. Amin, PD 53(5) 69 (1999); ACA 4693/05 Carmel Hospital v. Malool (2010); CA 4690/04 Sidi v. Clalt, PD 60(3) 590 (2005); CA 1303/09 Kadosh v. Bikor Kholim Hospital (2012).

  69. 69.

    For example: Refaelov, supra note 60; CC (Beer Sheva) 3001/09 A. K. v. Israel (2013); CC (Tel Aviv) 42400/05 A. N. v. A. A. (2013); FC (Tel Aviv) 82377/99 D. M. S. v. T. S. (2011); FC (Krayot) 1330/01 A. v. Ploni (2009).

  70. 70.

    For example: CA (Haifa) 51160-06-11 Hai v. Ramot Menasheh (2012); CA (Merkaz) 39345-07-12 K inc. v. Shraga (2013); CC (Jerusalem) 5901/09 Yaakobovitz v. Yad HAshmonah (2012); CC (Tel Aviv) 42617-02-11 Tzizis v. Vita Inc. (2012); CC (Kfar Saba) 5244/02 Nathan v. The Minister of Education (2006).

  71. 71.

    CA 153/04 Robinovitz v. Rozenboim (2006).

  72. 72.

    CA 1081/00 Avnaal Distribution Company Inc. v. Israel (17.01.2005)

  73. 73.

    In CC 3590-02-11 (Haifa) Plonit v. Israel (2013) the compensation was set for 87,000 Euro.

  74. 74.

    Given the fact that the lawsuit was based on the activity of the Israeli Defense Forces in the occupied territories, an alternative procedure would be to sue at the occupied territories for violation of decrees issued by the military commander. AC 3675/09 The State of Israel v. Daud, 109 PD 879 (2011).

  75. 75.

    See also RAC 6665/11, Daud v. the State of Israel, PD (2012); Yet one judge (Meltzer) has expressed in a separate opinion a wish that the State will grant ex gratia compensation, AC 3675/09 The State of Israel v. Daud, 109 PD 879 (2011).

  76. 76.

    Lewinsohn-Zamir, Daphna and Bar-Shira, Ada ( 1989 ); Tadesky et al. (1977); Gidron and Iluz (2013).

  77. 77.

    CA 245/81 Sultan v. Sultan, PD 38(3) 169, 175 (1984).

  78. 78.

    Patient Rights Act (1996).

  79. 79.

    Design and Constructing Act; Business Licensing Act (1968); Risks Prevention Act (1961).

  80. 80.

    Environmental Risks Prevention Act (Civil Claims ) (1992)

  81. 81.

    CA 1661/09 Shinberger v. Hava’ada Hamekomit (27.10.2011), §36, hereinafter: Shinberger.

  82. 82.

    CA 8664/06 Havat Tzabari Orly v. Israel (2012).

  83. 83.

    CA 9535/06 Abu Mesad v. Netziv Hamaim (2011).

  84. 84.

    In Israel there are 12 Basic Laws that should, in time, and with additional future Basic Laws that might be legislated, become its constitution.

  85. 85.

    CA 10508/08 Dor Zahav v. Hava’ada Hamekhozit (04.02.2010), hereinafter: Dor Zahav.

  86. 86.

    id.; §54; Shinberger, supra note 81.

  87. 87.

    CC (Nazeretz) 1135/04 Pri Metulah v. Rashoot Sedot Hateofa (12.03.2009).

  88. 88.

    It should be noted that the legal construction by which a breach of a Basic Law is a breach of a statutory duty is a construction that was developed by current Supreme Court Justice Dafna Barak-Erez in her academic writing previous to her appointment. It is reasonable to assume that she will voice her opinions in due time.

  89. 89.

    CC (Jerusalem) 19157/08 Allatif v. Israel (2012).

  90. 90.

    CC 4071/02 Anonym v. The Palestinian Autority, Judge Drori, 115 PD 1057 (2012), para. 370. The international treaty referred to was the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

  91. 91.

    See a similar discussion on whether the European Right Charter applies to private disputes English (2014) ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/01/22/does-the-eu-rights-charter-apply-to-private-disputes-sometimes-sometimes-not.. Accessed 4 March 2015.

  92. 92.

    CA 7703/10 Yeshuah v. Minhelet Tenufa; CA 5212/11 I. S, Ezrah Inc. v. Minhelet Tenufa; for the district courts’ decision see: CC (Jerusalem) 2131/08 Yeshuah v. Israel , (05.08.2010). (hereinafter: Yeshuah); CA 4550-01-08 I. S, Ezrah Inc. v. Israel (23.05.2011), hereinafter: Ezrah.

  93. 93.

    See §1(1) Application of the Disengagement Plan Act (2005).

  94. 94.

    HCJ 1661/05 Haezorit Hof Aza v. Rosh Hamemshala, PD 59(2) 481, 560–561 (2005), hereinafter: Hof Aza.

  95. 95.

    These are the conditions set by the Basic Laws.

  96. 96.

    Hof Aza, supra note 94, 594, 616–621.

  97. 97.

    Yeshuah, supra note 92, §39.

  98. 98.

    id., §60–64.

  99. 99.

    id., §61–80; Ezrah, supra note 92, §22–25.

References

  • Barak-Erez, Daphne, and Israel Gilead. 2009. Human rights in tort and contract law: The silent revolution. Kiryat Hamishpat 8: 11–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barak-Erez, Daphne, and Israel Gilead. 2007. Human rights in private law: The Israeli Case. In Human rights and the private sphere – A comparative study, eds. Dawn Oliver and Jorg Fedtke, 252–275. New York: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackstone, William. 1765. Commentaries on the laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheshin, Mishael. 1968. Tort law and the law of the fathers. Mishpatim 1: 346–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, Rosalind. 2014. Does the EU Rights Charter apply to private disputes? UK human rights blog. ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/01/22/does-the-eu-rights-charter-apply-to-private-disputes-sometimes-sometimes-not. Accessed 4 Mar 2015.

  • Gidron, Tamar. 2008. Between Bank’s Neglagence (UK) and The State’s Negligence (Israel): Pure economic damage in light of new ajudification – Analysis and evaluation in a comparative perspective. Hapraklit 50: 95–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gidron, Tamar. 2012. The state, public bodies, and public officials in negligence – A slippery sloap. Hapraklit 51: 443–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gidron, Tamar and Roi Iluz. 2013. Breach of statutory duty. In Sefer Or, eds. Aharon Barak, Ron Sokol, and Oded Shaham, 141–201. Nevo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilead, Israel, and Ehud Guttel. 2004. On broadening tort liability in the causation dimension – A critical analysis. Mishpatim 34: 385–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewinsohn-Zamir, Daphna, and Ada Bar-Shira. 1989. Breach of statutory duty. In The law of civil wrongs – The particular torts, ed. Tedeschi Gad, 1–96. Jerusalem: The Harry and Michael Sacher Institute for Legislative Research and Comparative Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loubser, Max, and Tamar Gidron. 2011. Liability of the state and public authorities in Israel and South Africa. Loyola Law Review 57: 727–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, Vernon. 2012. Mixed jurisdictions worldwide: The third legal family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tadeschi, Gad, Aharon Barak, and Mishael Cheshin. 1977. The law of civil wrongs: General part, ed. Gad Tedeschi, 2nd ed. Magnes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zandberg, Haya. 1994. Tort claims against the executive authority – The pendulum movement. Hapraklit 52: 591–627.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Haim Striks School of Law, The College of Management, Academic Studies, Rishon LeZion, Israel

    Iris Canor & Tamar Gidron

  2. School of Law, Zefat Academic College, Safed, Israel

    Tamar Gidron

  3. Civil Litigation Department, Attorney General Office, Jerusalem, Israel

    Haya Zandberg

Authors
  1. Iris Canor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tamar Gidron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haya Zandberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iris Canor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Law, Gdańsk University, Gdańsk, Poland

    Ewa Bagińska

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Canor, I., Gidron, T., Zandberg, H. (2016). Litigating Human Rights Violations Through Tort Law: Israeli Law Perspective. In: Bagińska, E. (eds) Damages for Violations of Human Rights. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18950-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation