10 Years after Submitting the Petition, 2.5 Years after the Supreme Court's Decision, and 1.5 Years after the Supreme Court's Deadline and Adalah's Motion for Contempt of Court:
State Announces to Supreme Court: There will be no Implementation of the National Priority Areas Decision in the Coming Year
|
On 29 July 2008, the state announced to the Supreme Court of Israel that it cannot shorten the process of implementation of the National Priority Areas decision to be completed in the coming year due to budget constraints. The state made this announcement in response to an order delivered by the Supreme Court on 29 June 2008 demanding that the state notify the court within 30 days of its intention to implement the Supreme Court's decision from February 2006 regarding the 'National Priority Areas' case within one year from today. The court directed the state to issue this notification, if confirmed by the state, provided that this extension of time would be the last extension to be given to the state to implement the decision. The Supreme Court issued the interim ruling at a hearing held on a motion for contempt of court filed by Adalah that demanded the implementation of a landmark Supreme Court decision delivered in February 2006 which obliged the state to cancel the "National Priority Areas" (NPAs) decision. The NPA decision is a governmental decision that divides the country into areas "A" and "B" and affords area "A" lucrative socio-economic benefits. Less than a handful of Arab towns and villages are classified as area "A". The motion for contempt was submitted by Adalah on behalf of the High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens in Israel and the Follow-Up Committee on Arab Education. Adalah further demanded that the state's request to postpone the implementation of the decision for another five years be rejected, and that the state be required to pay legal expenses. During the hearing, Chief Justice Beinisch and Justices Proccacia and Rivlin expressed their dissatisfaction with the state's position in this case, specifically, that until today, the decision is not implemented despite the court's order to implement it within one year. The justices expressed their reservations regarding the state's gradual implementation of the decision, which allegedly has been proceeding for more than two years. In its February 2006 judgment, the Supreme Court required the state to cancel the decision within twelve months of the day on which the ruling was delivered. In February 2007, after the one year period had expired, the state asked the court to delay the implementation date for a period of six months, until 1 September 2007. Shortly before the hearing scheduled for examining the demand, the state announced its intention to delay implementation of the ruling in order to make it easier for it to implement it gradually over a five-year period. This announcement raised a question mark for the petitioners about the government’s intention to adhere to the Supreme Court’s decision. At the hearing in 2007, the Supreme Court refused the state’s request, but agreed to postpone the implementation date for a period of one year, while expressing its serious reservations concerning the way in which the state dealt with its ruling. Ten years have passed since the petition was submitted to the Supreme Court. Two and a half years have passed since the ruling was delivered on the petition, and eighteen months have passed since the date that was set by the court for the implementation of its decision. However, the state has still not implemented the court's decision, even following the one-year extension approved in 2007 by the court. There is no new list that includes both Arab and Jewish towns and villages that receive all of the benefits that towns and villages classified as NPAs received. Further, no comprehensive plan has been drafted for examining all the components of the educational benefits that were awarded within the framework of the government’s decision. Towns and villages that are included in the list of NPAs receive lucrative benefits in the field of education, for example, for both teachers and students. The governmental decision included 535 towns and villages, including only four Arab villages, despite the fact that the socio-economic status of Arab towns and villages is far worse that in Jewish towns and villages. As a result, the population of Arab towns is at a great disadvantage in the field of education. In the motion for contempt of court, Adalah Attorneys Hassan Jabareen and Sawsan Zaher argued that the state has not demonstrated any intention to implement the court’s ruling as a whole. “Not implementing the court’s decision will lead to the continuing violation of the constitutional rights to equality and education, and breach the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers. What the state is proposing will prevent the principle of equality from being realized for a long period of time, and will result in the perpetuation of an unconstitutional situation that contradicts the law for an unreasonable period of time. This is so despite the fact that the court ruled in its decision that the governmental decision is discriminatory and illegally violates the right to equality.” Citation: H.C. 2773/98 and H.C. 11163/03, The High Follow-up Committee for the Arab Citizens in Israel, et. al. v. the Prime Minister of Israel
|
