Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:38:37.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Review of Statute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Peter Elman ,
Claude Klein  and
Benjamin Akzin
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Cases
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1969 , pp. 559 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 565 note 1 Witkon, A., “Justiciability” (1966) 1 Is.L.R. 40.Google Scholar

page 565 note 2 See sec. 11 of the Civil Procedure (The State as a Party) Law, 1958.

page 566 note 3 Cf. Berger, R. “Standing to Sue in Public Actions” (1969) 78 Yale L.J. 816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 567 note 4 Azuz v. Ezer (1963) 17 P.D. 2541, 2547 cited in Rubinstein, A., The Constitutional Law of the State of Israel (1969) p. 57 (in Hebrew). Cf. ibid. pp. 60–61.Google Scholar

page 567 note 5 Bassul v. Minister of the Interior (1965) (I) 19 P.D. 337, 349.

page 567 note 6 Cf. Guberman, S., “Israel's Supra-Constitution” (1967) 2 Is.L.R. 455.Google Scholar

page 567 note 7 See Likhovski, E., “The Courts and the Legislative Supremacy of the Knesset” (1968) 3 Is.L.R. 345, 353, 357.Google Scholar

page 568 note 8 (1966) 1 Is.L.R. 462.

page 568 note 9 Ibid. 488, 489.

page 568 note 10 Witkon, op. cit., 59.

page 569 note * The views expressed in this note are entirely personal.

page 569 note 1 That the decision was given in some haste was recognized by the judges themselves in the judgment: “…the material problems facing us in these hearings call for speedy solution…”.

page 569 note 2 In the technical sense, of course, it is not a declaration of illegality but an order nisi, made absolute, forbidding the Minister of Finance to give effect to the Law.

page 570 note 3 Cf. criticism of this law by Zamir, I., “The Party Finance Law, 5728–1968” Mishpatim Vol. I, Number 2, pp. 448–462 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

page 570 note 4 In actual fact the sum of IL. 14,880,000, as a simple multiplication shows, represents more than 120 shares of IL. 120,000 each. This is due to the fact that, certain political groupings having split since the last elections, the Law allots shares to the original grouping according to the number of members it had immediately after the last elections, but allots the shares due to the splinter group in the normal manner. The difference is IL. 480,000, that is, four shares.

page 570 note 5 A second argument had been put forward by the petitioner, but was dismissed straight away by the Court: the petitioner maintained that the right to introduce such a Law should be reserved to the Government, in accordance with the practice in force in the English House of Commons, which provides that members of Parliament cannot initiate legislation which has as its object an increase in expenditure.

page 570 note 6 Elections (Ratification of Validity of Laws) Law 5729–1969: 23 July 1969, Sefer HaHukim No. 568, p. 204.

page 571 note 7 Since the Constitution of 4 October 1958 came into force, the problem is slightly different, since there now exists in France a certain form of supervision of the constitutionality of Laws, reserved to the Constitutional, Council. As far as the Conseil d'Etat is concerned, the situation remains unchanged. Its material lack of jurisdiction in supervision of statutes is duplicated by a lack of jurisdiction resulting from regulations determining areas of jurisdiction. As for the jurisdiction of the old “Constitutional Committee” of the Constitution of 27 October 1946, it was even more limited and somewhat odd, since essentially it implied the subordination of the Constitution to the Law (cf. art. 91 of that Constitution): “…the Constitutional Committee examines whether the Laws voted by the National Assembly imply a revision of the Constitution.”

page 572 note 8 Ha'aretz, weekly supplement: 15 August 1969, No. 47 (298) p. 16 (in Hebrew).

page 573 note 9 Cf. Likhovski, : “The Courts and the legislative supremacy of the Knesset” (1968) 3 Is. L.R. 345 Google Scholar; “Can the Knesset Adopt a Constitution which will be the Supreme Law of the Land” (1969) 4 Is.L.R. 61, and Prof. Akzin's reply at p. 170 of the same issue.

page 573 note 10 Cf., e.g., Friedrich, C. J., Constitutional Government and Democracy (New York, 1965) 132–155.Google Scholar

page 573 note 11 For details of this precise problem, compare, besides the articles already cited, Rackman, Emanuel, Israel's Emerging Constitution (New York, 1965 Google Scholar); Rubinstein, A., “Israel's Piecemeal Constitution”, XVI Scripta Hierosolmytana (1966) 201 Google Scholar; Klinghoffer, Hans, “Die Entstehung des Staates Israel—Eine verfassungs-geschichtliche Darstellung”, Jahrbuch des Oeffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart Neue Folge, Band 10, pp. 440–484.Google Scholar

page 574 note 12 Besides the articles already cited (Likhovski, Rubinstein…), cf. articles by: Akzin, B. in (1961) 17 HaPraklit 230 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar; Sternberg, M., in (1968) 16 Molad 284 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

page 578 note 1 The Minutes of the Knesset for July 15, 1969 indicate that the statute was passed by 68 votes votes against 8 with 5 abstentions.