No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Takings and the Requirement of “Ongoing Public Purpose”: The Effect of the Constitutionalization of the Right to Property on the Law of Takings (Karsik v. The State of Israel, Israel Land Authority 55(II) P.D. 625)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Case Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2002
References
1 H.C.J. 2390/96 Karsik v. The State of Israel, Israel Land Authority 55(2) P.D. 625.
2 On the question of the expropriation of land for the purposes of developing residential dwellings, see Haviv-Segel, Irit, “Problems of Coordination and the Question of the Public Purpose in the Expropriation of Land” (1997/1998) 21 (3) Iyunei Mishpat 449Google Scholar.
3 Land (Acquistion for Public Purposes) Ordinance, 1943 P.G. supp. 1, section 3.
4 Ibid., section 2.
5 H.C. 33/53 Salamon v. Attorney General 7 P.D. 1023, 1028.
6 F.H. 29/69 Avivim v. Treasurer 24 (2) P.D. 397, 414.
7 H.C. 282/71 Banin v. Treasurer 25 (2) P.D. 466, 470.
8 H.C. 307/82 Lubjaniker v. Treasurer 37 (2) P.D. 141, 147. F.H. 4466/94 Nusseibah v Treasurer 49 (4) P.D. 68, 78.
9 Lubjaniker v. Treasurer, ibid n. 8, at 146-7.
10 Nusseibah v. Treasurer, supra n. 8, at 88.
11 Lubjaniker v. Treasurer, supra n. 8, at 148.
12 Nusseibah v. Treasurer, supra n. 8, at 68.
13 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, 1992, S.H. 1391, 150, as amended 1994, S.H. 1454, 90, section 3.
14 C.A. 1188/92 The Local Committee for Planning and Construction, Jerusalem v. Bareli 49(1) P.D. 463, 483. Also see C.A. 5222/93 Gush 1992 Binyan Ltd v. Helkah 168 in Gush 6181 Ltd (unpublished).
15 The most recent Court decision on this matter was given on 14.10.03, where the Court ruled to postpone discussion on the question of retrospective application of the Karsik ruling for a further nine months, pending legislative action by the Knesset.
16 Goldberg J. in H.C. 2739/95 Machol v. Treasurer 50 (1) P.D. 309, 323.
17 Karsik v. The State of Israel, supra n. 1, at 669.
18 Maza J. in Machol v. Treasurer, supra n. 16, at 328.
19 Machol v Treasurer, supra n. 16, at 319.
20 See D.C. (Jerusalem) 94/51 Ard v. The State of Israel (unpublished).
21 Karsik v. The State of Israel, supra note 1. Dorner J. (714), Beinish J. (718), Maza J. (720) are in agreement with Judge Zamir.
22 Ibid., Levine J. (713) and Or J. (720).
23 Ibid., 695.
24 Ibid., 695.
25 1 L.S.I 7.
26 Karsik v. The State of Israel, supra n. 1, at 698.
27 For example, the minority opinion of Dorner J. in Nusseibah v. Treasurer, supra n. 8, at 87 or Goldberg J. in Machol v. Treasurer, supra n. 16, at 321–322.
28 For a survey of this debate and its background, see, amongst others, Gabison, Ruth, “The Constitutional Revolution – a Description of Reality or a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy” (1997) 28 Mishpatim 2Google Scholar, Segel, Ze'ev, “The Road to Judicial Review of the Constitutionality of Laws” (1997) 28 Mishpatim 239Google Scholar, Kretzmer, David, “From Bergman and Kol Ha-Am to Bank HaMizrachi: The Road to Judicial Review of Laws that Injure Human Rights” (1997) 28 Mishpatim 359Google Scholar; Rubinstein, Amnon and Medina, Barak “The Constitution of the State of Israel” (2003) 8 Hamishpat 291Google Scholar.
29 See, for example, H.C.J. 537/95 Ganimat v. The State of Israel 49(3) P.D. 414; C.A. 6821/93 United Bank HaMizrachi v. Migdal Cfar Shitufi 49(4) P.D., 221.
30 See for example, C.A. 3901/96 Local Planning Committee v. Yehudit Horowitz 56(4) P.D., 913; C.A. 5546/97 The Local Planning and Construction Committee v. Hannah Holtzman 55(4) P.D., 629.