The Supreme Court ruled that the Palestinian Authority cannot require terror victims seeking compensation to prove again a permanent disability already established by the National Insurance Institute or in an earlier civil case, the prosecution announced Monday.
The court unanimously rejected two appeals filed by the PA and upheld the attorney-general’s position that the earlier disability findings must be accepted in a subsequent compensation claim over the same terrorist attack.
The ruling concerns the Exemplary Compensation Law for Victims of Terrorism, which took effect in June 2024. The law allows a person left with a permanent disability as a result of a terrorist attack to seek NIS 5 million in exemplary damages from the PA as an entity that rewards terrorism.
The payment is fixed and does not change according to the severity of the victim’s disability. It is intended both to compensate victims and to punish and deter the PA.
In the first case, a woman was traveling with her partner and two of their children in 2018 when stones thrown at their vehicle shattered its windows and injured their infant son in the face. The woman was later recognized by NII medical committees as suffering from a 5% permanent psychological disability and sought compensation from the PA under the new law.
Terror-related disabilities only need to be proven once
In the second case, the widow and children of a man murdered in a 2017 terrorist attack relied on an earlier civil judgment against the attackers. In that case, the family members had been found to suffer from permanent psychological disabilities of at least 20%.
The district courts in both cases rejected the PA’s attempts to challenge those findings by submitting new medical evidence. The PA then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, joined by Justices Yael Willner and Gila Canfy-Steinitz, upheld the lower court decisions.
The court said the law’s wording was clear: once a permanent disability has been established by the NII under the law governing victims of hostile acts, or by a court in a civil claim over the same attack, it does not have to be proven again.
The law does not include any provision allowing the PA to present evidence contradicting such a finding, Amit wrote. The omission was deliberate and reflected the law’s aim of creating a quick compensation process without forcing victims to repeatedly litigate their medical conditions.
The court also said the percentage of disability was not relevant to the amount awarded. Because every eligible victim receives the same sum, the only question is whether a permanent disability exists.
Amit acknowledged that the law was highly unusual within Israeli civil law but said its language was unambiguous and that the lower courts had applied it correctly.