The Supreme Court fully accepted the position of the Legal Advisor to the Government, rejected appeals filed by the Palestinian Authority, and ruled that the Palestinian Authority cannot present evidence to contradict a determination of disability determined by the National Insurance Institute for the purpose of compensation under the Compensation Law or a disability determined in another tort claim for the same event.
The position of the Legal Advisor to the Government was submitted by Attorney Naomi Zamerat from the Civil Department of the State Attorney's Office.
In June 2024, a Model Compensation Law came into effect, recognizing the right of victims of terrorist acts who have been permanently disabled to receive model compensation from the Palestinian Authority.
These are two requests for leave to appeal the decisions of the district courts regarding exemplary compensation claims filed against the Palestinian Authority as a sponsor of terrorism.
In one proceeding, the claim was filed by a victim of hostilities who was determined to have a mental disability by the medical committees of the National Insurance Institute in the matter of the Compensation Law. In the second proceeding, a claim was filed by the family members of a murdered victim of hostilities who were recognized as indirect victims in a tort claim they filed against the perpetrators.
The district courts rejected the PA's claims, which sought to contradict the decisions of the National Insurance Institute and the court's rulings in the tort claim.
The Supreme Court justices fully accepted the position of the Legal Advisor to the Government, and ruled that the language of the Model Compensation Law for Victims of Terrorism is clear and unambiguous: from the moment it is determined that a terrorist victim has suffered permanent disability - whether determined by the National Insurance Institute committees under the Compensation Law or by the court in a tort claim - the victim is entitled to model compensation.
It was emphasized that the fact that the law uses the past tense ("permanent disability that was determined") indicates that there is no need to re-discuss the existence of the disability or prove it anew in a claim for compensation, for example.
The Supreme Court addressed in a ruling that the Model Compensation Law does not include a provision that allows evidence to be brought to contradict a determination of disability. It was determined that this is a "negative and intentional arrangement" that expresses the purposes of the law: appropriate compensation for victims of acts of terrorism and the punishment and deterrence of the Palestinian Authority.
It was further determined that the amount of exemplary compensation is uniform and fixed, and does not depend on the degree of permanent disability, but rather on a binary question - whether permanent disability exists or not. The court emphasized that the determination of permanent disability is made after a thorough investigation of the injured party's medical condition, whether by medical committees of the National Security Council or through the opinions of medical experts in the courts.
Judge Yitzhak Amit reiterated in the ruling: "Although this is a very unusual law in the landscape of tort legislation, the language of the law is clear and serves the purposes of the law [...] In the current state of affairs, the Model Compensation Law is part of the number of laws of the State of Israel, and the rulings of the lower court are in law.".
This ruling constitutes another milestone in the interpretation of the law, the goal of which is that the process of receiving compensation, for example, from the Palestinian Authority as a terrorist compensation recipient, will be quick, efficient, and free of repeated litigation, including, among other things, regarding the determination of disability determined under the Compensation Law or in a tort claim. .
