A Palestinian woman, originally from the West Bank, had lived in East Jerusalem for many years with her Israeli resident husband and their three children, pursuant to stay permits she received in the framework of the family unification procedure. Following the sudden death of her husband in 2008, the woman was left without status or permit in Israel, under constant threat of arrest and deportation.
In early December 2014, the woman was detained by the police and was told she must leave Israel or arrange her presence in the country. On December 24, 2014,
HaMoked sent an application to the Ministry of Interior humanitarian committee to grant the woman status in Israel. HaMoked stressed that since the father of the family had died, the woman’s life had become extremely difficult, without a source of livelihood (in the absence of a permit to work in Israel) and in constant fear of deportation and forced separation from her three orphaned children, while entirely dependent on the goodwill of her deceased husband’s family to handle the children’s affairs vis-à-vis the authorities.
Despite the difficult circumstances, the committee dragged its feet and did not issue a decision on the woman’s case for a year. Therefore on November 12, 2015, HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) to instruct the Ministry of Interior to legalize the woman’s status in Israel. HaMoked also protested against the humanitarian committee’s conduct, which unreasonably exceeded the stipulated deadline for response.
After additional foot dragging, this time on part of the State Attorney’s Office, the
state announced on July 7, 2016 that the Minister of Interior had decided on the recommendation of the humanitarian committee to give the woman permits of stay in Israel.
HaMoked therefore agreed to delete the petition but asked the court to impose costs on the state, given the intolerable procrastination in handling the application before and even following the petition.
On March 8, 2017, the
HCJ ordered the state to pay HaMoked costs in the sum of ILS 10,000: “It cannot be ignored that the delays in the work of the humanitarian committee compel many of those who apply to it to file petitions such as the present petition which could have been rendered unnecessary”… ”the procedural conduct of the respondents in the framework of the petition justifies in itself a ruling of costs in favor of the petitioners”.
Moreover, the court ruled that according to previous understandings with the Ministry of Interior, it must prioritize applications “that on the surface appear to merit grant of status for humanitarian reasons”, and that “these understandings are appropriate and it is to be hoped that the respondents will act under them in future and set them in regulations”.
