AG to the Supreme Court: Depriving Income Support Payment from Car Users is Justified, Whatever their Reason for Using the Car

On 4 April 2005 the Attorney General's (AG) Office submitted its response to a petition filed in November 2004 by Adalah and Sawt al-'Amel (the Laborer's Voice), to the Supreme Court of Israel against the National Insurance Institute (NII), and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor. The petitioners demanded the cancellation of Article 9A(b) of the Income Support Law (1980) and Article 10(c) of the Income Support Regulations (1982), which prevent unemployed owners and users of cars from receiving secured income support allowances.

The petitioners argued that the language of the law is vague, and does not differentiate between an individual who owns a car and an individual who uses a car. Nor does the law draw a distinction between different models of cars or their relative values. The petition was submitted on behalf of a secured income support recipient, whose request to use a car to transport his blind daughter for medical treatment and in order to take care of her other daily needs was denied by the NII.

In the response, the AG's Office stated that, since the costs of running and maintaining a car are high, "the financing of these expenses must come from other, independent income, which the unemployed person did not report to the NII when it assessed his entitlement." The AG's Office further stated that, even when another person covers the costs of running and maintaining the car, that the unemployed individual should be deprived of his or her entitlement to income support, since, "we should see this unemployed person as being given from the car owner an amount of money equal to the car's value and the value of using the car." The state claimed that, "Israeli law does not encourage a reality where the public kitty pays for the basic needs of a person, while others finance his other, non-essential requirements."

Adalah argues that the state's response is absurd, representing an attempt to shift the entire burden of responsibility for the financial care of the unemployed from the state to their families. Further, the state's response, like the articles challenged by the petition, is arbitrary in that it does not give any weight to an unemployed individual's personal circumstances, the place where he or she lives, the availability of public transportation or to the value of the car. Arab citizens of Israel constitute a significant portion of individuals entitled to these benefits, and many Arabs in Israel also live in remote villages with limited or no access to public transport services. In addition, the response disregards the fact that a car is no longer an elite or luxury item, and that cars have, for many, become a basic or essential mode of transport.

The petition, filed by Adalah Attorney Gadeer Nicola, provides six personal accounts of secured income support recipients whose benefits were cancelled as a result of car usage. One such account, which took place in August 2004, details the NII informing one of the recipients, a single mother with four children who lives in the Arab village of Beer al-Maksour in the north, that her benefits would be discontinued because she had driven her son's car. The NII fined her NIS 15,138, claiming that it had paid her this amount, and that by using the car she had forfeited her entitlement to it. The NII made this decision despite the woman's testimony that she had used her son's car to travel to the unemployment office in Natserat Illit in the absence of public transportation from her village.

The petitioners argued that the law violates the constitutional rights of citizens, namely the right to dignity, which includes the right to a minimum standard of living, and the right to property. As the petition emphasizes, the NII rigorously enforces the law without discretion, and even employs private investigators to photograph and file reports on recipients arriving at unemployment offices in cars. In such circumstances where the NII believes that these individuals own or are using a car, the NII not only deprives them of further benefits, but also debits previous allowances provided to them. In cases where individuals are unable to pay the fines imposed by the NII, the NII has deducted debts from child allowances and from future income support payments which may be reactivated following a minimum of three months.

H.C. 10662/04, Salah Hassan, et. al. v. The National Insurance Institute, et. al. (case pending).