Supreme Court to AG: Explain Why Car Users are Ineligible for Income Support Payments
On 27 March 2006, the Supreme Court of Israel issued an order nisi (order to show cause) on a petition submitted by Adalah and Sawt al-'Amel (the Laborer's Voice) on behalf of a secured income support recipient whose request to use a car was denied by the National Insurance Institute (NII). Itach (Women Lawyers for Social Justice) and Commitment to Peace and Social Justice also submitted a petition on this issue on behalf of five single mothers. The petitions were filed against the NII and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor demanding the cancellation of Article 9A(b) of the Income Support Law – 1980 and Article 10(c) of the Income Support Regulations –1982, which prevent individuals who use or own a car from receiving income support payments. The Court's order impels the NII and the state to show cause as to why the above articles should not be cancelled. The Court also ordered the Attorney General (AG) and the NII to respond to the petitions within 90 days.
The two articles 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 individual on behalf of whom the Adalah 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.
In the petition, Adalah and Sawt al-‘Amel argued that these articles violate 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 articles are completely illogical as they draw no distinction between different models of cars, their relative value, maintenance costs or who pays for the car. Furthermore, the articles do not differentiate between those who own a car and those who merely use one. Furthermore, the articles fail 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 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 two articles stand in contradiction to the purpose of the Income Support Law, which is to secure the necessities for a dignified life for those who are unable to provide themselves with a minimum standard of living. In addition, the articles violate their constitutional rights to dignity and property.
In its response to the petitions, the AG's Office stated that, since the costs of running and maintaining a car are high, "the financing of these expenses must come from other, independent income, which the unemployed person did not report to the NII when it assessed his entitlement." The AG's Office further stated that, even when another person covers the costs of running and maintaining the car, the unemployed individual should be deprived of his or her entitlement to income support, since, "we should see this unemployed person as being given from the car owner an amount of money equal to the car's value and the value of using the car." The state claimed that, "Israeli law does not encourage a reality where the public kitty pays for the basic needs of a person, while others finance his other, non-essential requirements."
The petitioners argued that the response of the AG's Office is illogical and vague. The AG disregards the fact that a car is no longer an elite or luxury item, and that cars have, for many, become a basic or essential mode of transport, especially due to a lack of public transportation in Arab towns and villages.
H.C. 10662/04, Salah Hassan, et. al. v. The National Insurance Institute, et. al. (case pending).
