Announcement by HaMoked to members of the legal profession concerning lawsuits submitted by Palestinians against the State of Israel: Following the ruling of the High Court of Justice (HCJ) annulling Article 5C of the Civil Wrongs Law, all proclamations by the Minister of Defense concerning conflict zones are void, and any claim raised by the state in this matter is invalid

Following the ruling in HCJ 8270/05, Adalah v. Minister of Defense granted on 12 December 2006, Article 5C of the Civil Damages Law, 1952 has been annulled. As a result, all proclamations by the Minister of Defense of conflict zones are void, and any claim raised by the state in this matter is invalid. 

An interim order granted by petition outlines the courses of action to be taken regarding cases covered by Article 5C of the Law (through its nullification): 

1. Lawsuits rejected or erased following the declaration that the area where the event related to the lawsuit took place is “a conflict zone” – an appeal may be submitted against the decision to reject or delete the suit before 26 January 2007.
   If the deleted suit must be resubmitted, the period of time between the submission of the suit and 10 February 2007 will not be counted toward the statute of limitations.
   
   
2. Lawsuits not yet submitted – the period of time between 10 August 2005 and 10 February 2007 will not be counted towards limitations. For example, a lawsuit whose limitations ran out on 10 January 2006 (that is, when the law was passed, there were still 4 months before the deadline, but the lawsuit was not presented after the area was declared to be a “conflict zone”), then this may be submitted through 10 June  2007.
   
   
3. The above-mentioned extension of the limitations  will not apply if the suit could have been submitted by the normal deadline if one of the exceptions made in the law applies: there was a conviction in the matter on account of which the suit was submitted; the injured party was damaged while a prisoner or detainee; the injured party or his property were damaged in a traffic accident in which a vehicle belonging to the security authorities was involved and the identity of the vehicle and its driver are known; or the damage was caused as a result of an action of the Civil Administration. In addition, an extension of the deadline as mentioned in para. 2 above, will not apply if the area in which the lawsuit was lodged was not declared a "conflict zone" before the deadline relevant to the lawsuit.
   Note that in all the cases mentioned in clause 2 above, as well as any future suit, the limitations will remain at two years only. Accordingly, it is naturally still necessary to announce the damage to the Ministry of Defense within 60 days from the date on which the damage occurred.
   
   Courses of action not in the framework outlined in the interim order
   
   
4. Regarding lawsuits which were rejected or erased, it is possible to try to arrive at an agreement with the district attorney which will make submitting an appeal unnecessary, such as a registered request for a cancellation of a court ruling.
   
   
5. For lawsuits in which a request was made for rejection or deletion in limine, following the declaration of the area to be a “conflict zone” and in which the deliberation about the request and the suit were rejected before the HCJ decision --  it is preferable to enter a motion to reject the request for rejection in limine, or a an updating announcement to the court concerning the HCJ decision.
   
   This announcement is issued as a service to members of the legal profession and is not a substitute for legal counsel.

To view the interim order (Hebrew)