State: Reject Arabs' claims in Mitzpeh Kramim

State asks High Court not to overturn District Court's ruling allowing Samaria residents rights to their own land.

Arutz Sheva Staff ,

Mitzpe Kramim
Mitzpe Kramim
Hezki Baruch

The State Attorney's Office submitted its summations to the High Court of Justice on the civil appeal submitted by three Palestinian Arabs to the Jerusalem District Court in the matter of Mitzpeh Kramim.

The District Court accepted the claim of the residents of the neighborhood that they own the lands on which the Mitzpe Kramim neighborhood is located, near the settlement of Kokhav Hashahar in the Binyamin region.

The position of the State, which was submitted to the Attorney General, stated that the appellants' arguments should be rejected, the District Court's ruling applying the 'Market ouvert' clause to their town should be upheld.

Last August, the Jerusalem District Court accepted the claim of the residents of Mitzpe Kramim in Samaria to apply the 'Market ouvert' clause to Mitzpe Kramim.

The application of this clause constituted a green light for the planning of construction of Mitzpe Kramim, which was established in the late 1990s, and is home to dozens of families. In this way, the court established a legal precedent for the regulation of young communities, throughout Judea and Samaria.

The ruling was made possible, inter alia, after heavy pressure from Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked changed the attorney general's position and informed the court that he was not opposed to applying the clause to Mitzpeh Kramim.

Judge Darel, during the judgment, also criticized the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Civil Administration. The judge ordered the Palestinian Arab defendants to pay the residents legal expenses of NIS 15,000, while the Civil Administration imposed expenses of NIS 25,000, and even obligated the director to reimburse the residents of the costs of the trial (the fee, the payment to the witnesses and any other expenses). "In determining the amount, I gave my opinion to the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by defendant 4, which led to the extension of the hearing and its complexity," Justice Darel wrote.



top