Absentee Property Law: Results of Supreme Court Hearing
During the proceedings on September 10th, attorneys continued to argue both the merits of the individual cases forming the basis of the Supreme Court challenge and the larger issue at stake.
Three out of four of the cases forming the basis for the Supreme Court hearing will be discussed in the special committee charged with overseeing the release of absentee property. The State withdrew its appeal in one of the cases (6580/07), accepting the District Court’s conclusion that the owners had not been “absent” by law. Court expenses to be paid by the State were determined and the case is now closed.
Regarding the status of the three remaining cases:
· Case 2038/09 (Cliff Hotel): Under a previous decision, the committee recommended that part of the property belonging to owners residing in Abu Dis should be released. According to the committee, two of the remaining owners are in Kuwait and one in Jordan. An additional piece of the property was confiscated for security purposes. Owners demand release of the remaining assets.
· Case 5931/06 (Beit Safafa): The case involves multiple sales transactions and both Jewish and Palestinian parties to the case. The committee previously recommended reimbursement for a portion of the land in question to one of the claimants. The case will return to the committee for further recommendations. Some of the remaining Jewish parties are represented by a lawyer known for his representation of settler organizations.
· Case 2250/06 (Beit Hanina): The case will return to the special committee in response to its request for additional information to resolve the question of heirs.
According to a decision issued by the Supreme Court on September 11, both state and private attorneys now have until October 15 to come to agreement on the three individual cases remaining before the Court. If no full agreement is achieved, the Court formally requests opinions from all attorneys regarding a date from which point a principled decision to cancel use of the Law of Absentee Property in East Jerusalem would go into effect. Specifically, the attorney representing the Custodian of Absentee Property must issue an opinion by November 28. All other attorneys have until January 13. The Custodian may then submit a secondary opinion by February 13.
Prior to the decision, Supreme Court President Grunis reiterated his view that it is preferable for the parties to come to an agreement without the need for a judgment from the Court. Given his stated his preference for practical case based solutions over principled ones, Ir Amim reserves moderate hope that the Court will make a general ruling ending application of the Law of Absentee Property in East Jerusalem—used, since its inception, as a primary tool for the confiscation of property from Palestinian owners.
Background
On May 21, the Israeli Supreme Court, in its discussion of the application of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem, ruled that Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein must appear before the Court at an additional hearing to deliver the state’s position. The hearing was held in response to four cases—three appeals from East Jerusalem residents, including the owners of the Cliff Hotel, to a lower court decision upholding the right to apply the law and one appeal from the State against a contrary ruling claiming the law should not apply. In its ruling, the Supreme Court maintained that the State, in its practical consideration of solutions, should reference the 1968 instruction of Attorney General Meir Shamgar, who determined that the Absentee Property Law should not apply in East Jerusalem.
On August 28, the Ministry of Justice issued a press release regarding the position submitted to the Supreme Court by the Praklitut Hamedina (State Attorney’s Office) on the four consolidated absentee property cases currently pending in the Supreme Court. The State’s response, submitted ahead of the September 10 hearing to which the attorney general was summoned by the Court, contained both a statement regarding application of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem and specific decisions regarding the four cases in question.
The response stated that the attorney general has adopted the positions of his predecessors, Meni Mazuz and Meir Shamgar, regarding the applicability of the Absentee Property Law to properties located in East Jerusalem but owned by residents of the West Bank. The attorney general maintained that while the Absentee Property Law is legally applicable in East Jerusalem, actual implementation of the law in East Jerusalem raises “considerable legal difficulties with regard to both international law and administrative law”. Because of these complexities, he stated that the law should only be applied in special circumstances, subject to the prior approval of the attorney general.
In its response, the State informed the Court that in one of the four cases under question, it would retract its claim to seize the property due to the District Court’s decision that the owner is not residing in an enemy state. In July, the special committee appointed by the government and charged with overseeing the release of absentee property discussed the three remaining cases in question according to new guidelines issued by the attorney general. In the most visible case, regarding the Cliff Hotel, a recommendation was made to release part of the property to one of its owners and to compensate them for that portion of the property that has already been confiscated. In a second case, the committee determined that because the property has already been purchased by a third party, the owners should be compensated; and in the remaining case, because the registered owner is deceased, the committee delayed a decision until further information regarding potential heirs could be obtained.
– See more at: http://ir-amim.org.il/en/basic/absentee-property-law-results-supreme-court-hearing#sthash.t2YH0zww.dpuf