The Supreme Court ruled today (Monday) that The government cannot continue to authorize the GSS in a sweeping way to assist in conducting epidemiological investigations And should limit the organization’s assistance only to patients who do not cooperate in a human epidemiological investigation or who have not reported any contact.
Summary of the judgment by maariv
In a petition filed by four civic organizations, the court was asked to order the repeal of the “GSS Accreditation Law” – or alternatively to cancel the government’s declaration of GSS accreditation under the law.
Therefore, it was determined by a majority of opinions (President A. Hayut, Vice President H. Meltzer, Justice Y. Amit and Justice D. Barak-Erez) that the sweeping use of the GSS will be stopped and that The government must formulate measurable criteria that will determine the scope of the GSS assistance and ensure that this assistance will only be a complementary tool..
The court ruled that “in order to formulate the aforesaid criteria, an organization period will be set so that the deadline for their formulation is March 14, 2121, and that from that date onwards, GSS authorization will be limited in all cases only to cases where the verified patient does not cooperate in the epidemiological investigation.” “Whether due to memory limitations or not reporting contacts at all.”
It further stated that “the arrangement enshrined in the law, which allows the government to declare the GSS ‘authorization to assist in conducting epidemiological investigations for a period of up to 21 days, It is an exceptional arrangement that violates a real violation of the constitutional right to privacy. “. However, the majority opinion (President A. Hayut, Vice President H. Meltzer, Justice v. Handel, Justice Y. Amit, Justice v. Solberg, Justice D. Barak-Erez) stated that “given the exceptional circumstances of the period, There is no room for judicial intervention in the force of the permanent arrangements in it itself. “
In a statement issued by the Supreme Court, he wrote that “the clear ‘warning signs’ set by the law in the form of the various mechanisms contained therein, are intended to mitigate the violation of the right to privacy and the limited period established from the outset in relation to the law.”
The judges therefore focused on examining how the government exercised administrative discretion in its decisions on GSS accreditation. He emphasized that “since the enactment of the GSS Accreditation Law, there have been significant changes and factual changes in the picture of dealing with the virus, including the triple epidemiological investigation.” The vaccination campaign. “