Background
The applicants are ten members of one family who reside in the West Bank and seek permits to remain in Israel based on alleged threats against them. The proceeding centered on two brothers who applied to the Threatened Persons Committee, asserting that they were endangered because they were suspected of collaborating with Israel. Their requests for temporary protection from removal were denied, and their appeals to the Committee remained undecided.
The family filed an administrative petition seeking decisions on the brothers’ appeals and requested interim protection preventing the family’s removal from Israel. They alleged an immediate danger to their lives, including an incident in January 2026 in which masked individuals came to the brothers’ mother’s home and used violence while searching for them. The Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court, sitting as a Court for Administrative Affairs, denied only the request for an immediate ex parte order, finding no evidence of a “concrete threat at the present time” and noting uncertainty over whether recently requested documents had been supplied. It directed the respondents to answer the still-pending application for an interim order within 15 days after service, and it later denied reconsideration.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Daphne Barak-Erez denied leave to appeal without requesting a response. The Supreme Court emphasized that leave to appeal trial-court rulings concerning temporary relief is granted only under a narrow standard, which the applicants had not satisfied.
The Court found it significant that the District Court had not rejected the family’s application for interim relief on the merits. It had denied only the exceptional remedy of an immediate ex parte order and had set a relatively short deadline for the State’s response to the application for an interim order. The Supreme Court expressly stated that its decision took no position on the merits of the allegations in the underlying administrative petition.
Because leave to appeal was denied, the accompanying requests for temporary and immediate relief were also denied. No costs were awarded because the respondents had not been required to answer.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate intervention in interlocutory decisions concerning temporary relief is available only under a restrictive standard.
- Denial of an immediate ex parte order does not resolve a separately pending application for interim relief, particularly where the lower court has ordered a prompt response.
- The Supreme Court did not decide whether the family faced a qualifying threat, whether the Committee had delayed unreasonably, or whether removal should ultimately be barred.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes emergency ex parte protection from ordinary interim relief in Israeli administrative proceedings. Even where applicants allege a risk of irreparable harm from removal, the Supreme Court may decline immediate intervention when the lower court is promptly considering an adversarial request for interim protection.
For practitioners, the ruling underscores the importance of presenting current, concrete evidence of danger and showing that the demanding standard for appellate review of temporary-relief decisions has been met. It also preserves the applicants’ ability to pursue their interim-relief request and the merits of their challenge to the Committee’s alleged delay.