On 12 December 2005, the Supreme Court rejected the petitions submitted by the three organizations: Commitment to Peace and Social Justice, The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), and The Movement to Fight Poverty, demanding the cancellation of the cuts in the guaranteed income benefit. However, although ACRI is sorry that the court did not use this opportunity to examine the means by which the state cuts benefits without examining its effect on the benefit’s recipients, the court still took an important step through its recognition of the right to a dignified existence as a basic right. The petitions, which were submitted in January 2003, were directed against the Minister of Finance and the National Insurance Institute (NII), and demand the cancellation of the benefit cuts, which went into effect in 2003. These cuts reduced the income of families of limited means by 600 NIS a month on average (according to NII statistics). The petitioning organizations emphasized, in their petitions, that this sharp cut in benefits severely violates the right of its recipients to live in dignity. ACRI and the Movement to Fight Poverty were represented by ACRI Attorney Sharon Abraham-Weiss, and the organization, Commitment to Peace and Social Justice, by Attorneys Avigdor Feldman and Avishai Beinish.
In response to the petitions submitted by the organizations the court accepted their position that the right to human dignity does not stop at the doorstep of those living in poverty, and that those living with limited means have the right to the legal protection of their right to a dignified existence. However, despite the state’s position, according to which, this right is limited to basic physical existential needs (such as a roof over one’s head, clothing and the prevention of hunger), the petitioners claim that the legal protections to which families of reduced means are entitled should also cover additional needs such as: the right to education and health, the level of which must reflect the standard of living that is acceptable to the remaining sectors of society. The petitioners further emphasized that the right to a dignified existence must protect those of limited means in the same way as the right to ownership protects holders of assets.
The petitioners’ position states that it is not the state’s claims that cuts must be made that is in question, but the level of the cuts and the extent to which they impact on the recipients of the guaranteed income benefits, and to what extent it violates their right to a minimally dignified existence. The state legislator must clarify – before implementing the cuts – whether or not the level of the benefit after the cut will allow this type of existence. This question, the petitioners state, was not considered at all, and an examination of its implementation shows that the reduced benefits do not enable the provision of these basic necessities. The petitioners also claimed that the judgment of the legislator, as it relates to the basic needs of individuals of limited means, like all other legal rights, is not absolute. Thus, the role of the court is to judge whether or not the specific policy violates the right to a dignified existence. Budgetary considerations, like security concerns, have no magical powers to prevent judicial review. The onus is on the court is to establish legal limits on the government’s authority. The state is limited, not only in its consideration of the ownership rights of the rich, but also in its violation of the rights of the poor, central to which is the right to a dignified existence.
The decision to implement the cuts, the petitioners repeatedly stressed, was carried out without any basic research into its effects on some hundred thousand families who are descending into poverty, as are the approximately two hundred thousand children who are part of these families. Moreover, the state is totally avoiding the adoption of a comprehensive strategy, or a degree of proportionality that will allow it to devise an outline plan for a series of social and economic protections for the most vulnerable population in Israel.
This sharp cut in benefits, together with the erosion of other “safety nets” (like rental assistance and child benefit, and the enforced rise in health and education costs), are pushing individuals into a situation in which they do not have a sufficient income to enable them to live with dignity, and in many instances, to provide for the most basic necessities that the state declared, in front of the Supreme Court, as an integral part of the right to a minimally dignified existence. Thus, for example, the level of the benefits for a family made up of two parents and two children, after the cuts, is 2,240 NIS. According to NII calculations that were published after the cuts, the reduced benefit, together with the child benefit that is paid to a family like this, covers only 54% of the families’ vital minimal requirements.
To read a Ha`aretz article about the court`s decision, click here.
last updated : 21/12/05
