On 7 October 2007, the Supreme Court held a hearing on a petition filed by Adalah and the Laborer’s Voice (Sawt al-‘Amel) in 2004 against the National Insurance Institute (NII) and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor to cancel a provision of the Income Support Law (1980) and an accompanying regulation, which prevent individuals entitled to income support payments from using or owning a car. This law causes severe hardship to thousands of families who require income support payments and car usage. After the filing of the petition, the Knesset passed an amendment to the law with very narrow exemptions for car use and ownership by income support recipients, and then the state asked the court to dismiss the petition as moot. Adalah rejected the state’s contention, arguing that the new amendment did not change the unconstitutionality of the law, and at the hearing the court asked the petitioners to submit an amended petition dealing specifically with the new amendment.

The petition, filed in 2004, sought the cancellation of the law and the accompanying regulation, which stipulate that an individual who fulfills all the conditions for receiving income support payments but who owns and/or uses a car, is ineligible for these payments. The income support recipient on behalf of whom Adalah and Sawt al-‘Amel filed the petition wrote to the NII in April 2004 requesting permission to use a car so that he could transport his blind daughter for medical treatment and to provide for other daily needs. The NII refused the man’s request.

The petitioners emphasized that the NII rigorously enforces the law in a sweeping manner. “Economic police officers” employed by the Ministry of Finance follow income support recipients and photograph and file reports on them arriving at unemployment offices by car, and even take photographs of the cars parked next to their homes. In such circumstances where the NII believes that individuals own or are using a car, they are not only prevented from receiving income support payments, but fines are also imposed on them of up to tens of thousands of New Israeli Shekels. In cases where individuals are unable to pay the fines imposed by the NII, the NII has deducted the debt from child allowances and from future income support payments.

The petitioners argued that the law violates basic constitutional rights. The criterion of car use and/or ownership is discriminatory, a breach of the principle of equality and has no connection to the standard of living of those seeking income support payments. The petitioners also contended that the law is completely illogical as it draws no distinction between different models of cars, their relative value, maintenance costs or who pays for the car. Furthermore, the law does not differentiate between those who own a car and those who merely use one, and fails to take into consideration the personal circumstances of a secured income support recipient, such as need for a car, location of the home, or availability of public transportation.

The Knesset amended the Income Support Law following the filing of the petition. Two new articles were enacted to provide exceptions to law which allow a person who owns or uses a car to receive income support payments. The first exception relates to the size of a car’s engine and the age of the car, however, it results in discrimination between recipients of supplementary income support and recipients of income support payments. As well as depending on the size of a car’s engine and the age of the car, the second exception enables income support recipients to own and/or use a car in cumulative circumstances relating to when the individual lost his or her previous work, which as Adalah Attorney Sawsan Zaher argued at the hearing are illogical and lead to discrimination against Arab applicants.

As Adalah argued, neither of these exceptions is related to the purpose for which the Income Support Law was enacted. The purpose of the law in fact is to secure the necessities for a dignified life to those who are unable to provide themselves with a minimum standard of living.

H.C. 10662/04, Salah Hassan et. al. v. The National Insurance Institute, et. al. (case pending).