Articles

Across democratic legal systems, governments routinely make decisions that alter the course of people’s lives: revoking a licence, discontinuing a prosecution, refusing access to official records, or restricting a person’s movements. What citizens are less routinely told is why. The duty to give reasons — the obligation of a public authority to explain the grounds on which it acted — is among the most practically significant and fiercely contested principles in modern administrative law. Its reach and depth differ considerably between jurisdictions, yet the underlying tension is universal: executive power exercised in silence is executive power shielded from scrutiny. This article examines the duty through four legal lenses: Israeli Supreme Court jurisprudence, United States administrative law under the Administrative Procedure Act, English common law and its recent evolution, and the European Union’s treaty-based framework. Together these perspectives reveal both a convergent trend toward greater transparency and persistent differences in the mechanisms through which it is enforced. I. Why Silence Is Not Neutral There is an intuitive case for letting government decisions speak for themselves. Officials are appointed, trained, and accountable through democratic structures. If a licence is refused or a prosecution abandoned, a citizen who disagrees may appeal. What, then,

The 1980 Hague Convention is not a tool for resolving family disputes — it is an emergency mechanism for restoring the status quo: the child must be returned to the country from which they were taken, and only then will a competent court address the merits of the dispute. Israeli case law has developed rigorous and consistent standards for each key element of this mechanism — from defining “habitual residence” to applying the exceptions to the return rule. Courts have consistently held that exceptions are to be construed narrowly and applied only in genuinely exceptional circumstances, not as a standard line of defense. Time is of the essence — a parent’s delay in seeking judicial relief not only weakens their position but may be interpreted as tacit acquiescence to the situation. Professional legal assistance from the very first days of a conflict is often the factor that determines the outcome. The Convention in Practice: From Text to Reality The removal of children abroad by one parent without the knowledge or consent of the other is one of the most acutely painful problems in contemporary family law. Globalization, international marriages, and migration have made such situations anything but rare. When a

Israeli Law, Paternity Testing, and the Price of Silence For decades, courts have been developing tools to resolve one of the most painful disputes in family law: establishing biological paternity. Genetic testing — tissue typing, as it was once called — has earned the title of the “gold standard” of evidence in this domain, yet one of the parties not infrequently refuses to undergo it. Since a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1980, Israel has operated under a clear principle: refusing to take a test is itself evidence — and powerful evidence at that. The Genetic Information Law, enacted in 2000, brought order to what had been a patchwork of case law and was subsequently amended to explicitly empower courts to issue compulsory testing orders. When a test cannot be conducted at all, courts do not simply give up. They either draw adverse inferences from the fact of non-compliance or allow paternity to be established through other means — all in service of the overriding principle that guides family law: a child’s right to know who their father is. Tissue Doesn’t Lie — and Courts Have Known That Since 1980 The year is 1978. An unmarried bank employee claims she

In 1962, the Israeli Supreme Court faced a case so unusual that the judges themselves admitted the real difficulty wasn’t legal — it was moral. How do you tell a man who saved 150 Jews from the Nazis that he isn’t Jewish enough? Meet Oswald Rufeisen. Born in Poland in 1922 into a Jewish family, raised in the Zionist youth movement, dreaming of moving to the Land of Israel. Then the war came, and his biography took a turn that no screenplay writer would dare submit. Using forged documents identifying him as German and Christian, he got himself hired as a secretary and translator at a German police station in the Belarusian town of Mir. From that position, he systematically tipped off the local Jewish community about upcoming Nazi operations, smuggled weapons, and when the ghetto was about to be liquidated — warned them in time. Around 150 people fled to the forests and survived. Most of them eventually settled in Israel. When he was caught and arrested, he escaped and hid in a convent. It was there, in 1942, that he converted to Catholicism. By 1945 he had become a Carmelite monk — deliberately choosing that order because it

The Maksimenko family case represents a landmark precedent in Israeli immigration law. The High Court of Justice examined the rights of family members of “repeat immigrants.” Afanasy Maksimenko, who renounced his Israeli citizenship in 1996 and married a Ukrainian citizen with two children, faced rejection from the Ministry of Interior when seeking immigrant status for his family during his second aliyah in 2003. The state argued that since the marriage took place while Maksimenko was still an Israeli citizen, the family had no right to immigrate and should undergo the complex naturalization procedure. In 2010, the High Court ruled that a repeat immigrant has all the rights of a regular immigrant, including the right to bring family members, as the determining factor is one’s status upon arrival in Israel, not the time of marriage. The decision established an important principle of broad interpretation of the Law of Return and protection of family unity in the immigration process. The Paradox of Israeli Citizenship Israeli immigration legislation is considered among the most liberal in the world. The Law of Return guarantees every Jew the right to aliyah and automatic citizenship. However, what happens when someone who has already exercised this right later

The Story of One Ukrainian and His Long Journey to Justice In May 2025, the Tel Aviv District Administrative Court issued a ruling that vividly demonstrates how government agencies can transform a lawful procedure into genuine bureaucratic torture. Artem’s case reveals not only problems with interpreting the concept of “religious conversion” in the context of the Law of Return, but also egregious violations of the principle of good faith by government agencies. Back in 2018, Artem applied for repatriation status for himself, his wife, and children. The basis was that he was born to a Jewish mother and Jewish grandparents on his mother’s side. The Population and Immigration Authority did not dispute the fact of the applicant’s Jewish origin, but denied him status, citing that he “belongs to another religion.” The roots of this claim lay in the fact that Artem was baptized as an infant at the insistence of his Christian father, and when filling out the application form in 2018, he indicated “Christian” in the “religion” field and “Jewish” in the “nationality” field. Additionally, he stated that he attends church once a year and celebrates major Christian holidays. However, even then Artem emphasized that the baptism occurred against

A woman born Jewish, raised from age six by her Muslim grandmother in Uzbekistan after her mother’s departure to Israel, fought a long battle for the right to immigrate—a right denied to her due to declarations of Islamic faith. Despite numerous rejections from the Interior Ministry and previous court instances, the District Court ultimately ruled that Shahzoda’s formal statements were insufficient proof of a conscious religious conversion. The court held that substantial evidence of deliberate and voluntary renunciation of Judaism is required to restrict immigration rights, particularly when dealing with individuals raised in mixed families. The decision reflects positive changes in judicial practice following the 2017 reform, when such cases were transferred from Supreme Court jurisdiction to District Courts, which now apply a more flexible and individualized approach. Introduction Questions of religious identity in Israel are not merely personal matters. In a country where religion is deeply intertwined with the legal system and politics, determining a person’s religious affiliation can have serious legal consequences. This is particularly relevant when foreigners seek to obtain citizenship under the Law of Return. Such a situation became the subject of litigation in the case of Shahzoda v. Israel Ministry of Interior, where the court

The Essence of the Bill The Israeli Knesset is currently discussing a bill on the Basic Law “On Entry, Immigration and Status in Israel,” proposed by Members of Knesset Simcha Rothman and Zvika Fogel. It should be emphasized that this is currently only a bill, which nevertheless has already been approved in the first reading. If this legislative initiative becomes an active Basic Law, the Knesset will subsequently issue a separate law (not a basic one) that will present more detailed specifics. Ban on Judicial Protection One of the most controversial points of the bill is the provision prohibiting persons without Israeli citizenship or residence permits from appealing to court on matters of entry into the country. This doesn’t merely restrict, but actually completely deprives an entire category of people of judicial protection, which directly contradicts the fundamental principle of the rule of law and raises serious questions about the constitutionality of such an approach. “A person who arrived here without status will not be able to appeal to court… If we are a democratic state that respects human rights, we cannot deprive a person of the right to appeal to court simply because they are a refugee,” noted Member

Introduction: A Complex Case at the Intersection of Religion and Law The Jerusalem Rabbinical Court recently examined a curious case of a man whom the state considered “Jewish, but not quite.” One official body recognized his full Jewish status, while another explained that for Law of Return purposes, he was not considered Jewish. The Rabbinical Court had to resolve this paradox. Family History: Jewish Roots and Christian Influence A young man approached the court with what seemed like a simple request – to clarify his Jewish status and the possibility of undergoing conversion (giyur). However, behind this request lay a complicated family history. His mother, though born to a Jewish woman, was registered in Russia as Russian due to her non-Jewish father. The young man’s mother and grandmother were baptized, and then he himself, according to his mother, underwent baptism as an infant. Legal Paradox: Jewish by Halakha, Non-Jewish by Law As often happens in such situations, the Ministry of Interior and the Nativ consular service denied the young man the right to immigrate under the Law of Return, not recognizing him as Jewish. The situation with religious conversion is as follows: The Law of Return grants the right to

Immigration to Israel (Aliyah) is the process of obtaining citizenship available to Jews (defined through the maternal line), their children, grandchildren and their spouses, as well as widows and widowers. To confirm the right to immigrate, it is necessary to provide documents proving both the Jewish origin of an ancestor and the family connection with them, with original old documents valued more than new copies. In complex cases where documentary evidence is insufficient, genetic testing may be required to confirm kinship, which is conducted only in Israeli laboratories. The immigration process itself includes several stages: arrival in Israel, consular verification (or passing through a checkpoint abroad), obtaining an immigrant visa, registration for a temporary ID card, and subsequent receipt of permanent documents. Special cases include “recent marriages” (less than 12 months), immigration of the fourth generation (great-grandchildren of Jews), elderly parents of immigrants, and separate family immigration, each requiring a special approach and possibly having additional conditions. The process can become more complicated if there is a criminal record, serious illness, change of faith, or adoption in previous generations, as well as in the case of a single-parent family, when special permission from the second parent is required. Introduction Immigration

Introduction Obtaining Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return is a life-changing decision. However, it is important to understand that even after immigration, and sometimes many years after you have completely changed your life, the Ministry of Interior through the Population and Immigration Authority can initiate proceedings to revoke your status if it is discovered that you obtained your citizenship through fraud or by providing false information. While citizenship revocation is not a common procedure, every new Israeli citizen should be aware of this legal possibility and understand what actions could lead to the loss of Israeli citizenship. As stated in Procedure 5.2.0016 of the Population and Immigration Authority, updated in February 2024, “Citizenship in Israel, like any other right, is not an absolute right and can be revoked if it is found that it was obtained through fraud/based on the provision of false information.” The fundamental principle for granting Israeli citizenship is the applicant’s honesty and the authenticity of the documents provided. If years later fraud, deception, or falsified documents are discovered, the state has the legal right to revoke citizenship that was obtained fraudulently. This article will review the grounds for citizenship revocation, the established procedures, and ways

Introduction to Marriage Legalization in Israel Marriage legalization in Israel remains a relevant topic as the country continues to balance its religious traditions with modern globalization trends. In Israel, marriages are typically regulated by religious authorities, making the process more complex or impossible for secular residents or representatives of non-Jewish communities. Main Legislative Aspects of Marriage Legalization Israel continues to apply regulations aimed at complicating the marriage legalization procedure between Israelis and foreigners. The main legislative aspects include: Marriage Registration Process: since July 2023, the system recognizes online marriages conducted in the U.S. state of Utah. This doesn’t mean that everything now works “automatically” and easily. On the contrary. But at least today, the Ministry of Interior no longer refuses to consider applications for the spouse-visa procedure simply because the marriage was conducted online. Video: Recognition of Civil Marriages: Israeli legislation continues to recognize civil marriages conducted outside the country. Of course, when it comes to marriages between Israelis and foreigners, the system creates many complications and obstacles in recognizing such marriages, starting primarily with the “simple” document package. However, a competent family reunion process lawyer usually finds keys to solving this problem. Video: The family reunion process is an

Introduction In the modern world, situations where Israeli citizens spend significant time outside the country are becoming increasingly common. This may be due to work, study, caring for relatives, or simply a desire to travel. However, prolonged stay abroad can lead to the loss of resident status, which entails a number of serious consequences, including limited access to medical care and social benefits. Who is considered a resident of Israel? In Israeli legislation, the concept of “resident” is not limited to the simple fact of having citizenship or a residence permit. A resident is considered a person who has A/5, A/1, A/2, A/4 status, permanent residence (“toshav keva”), or citizenship, whose center of life is in Israel. However, the National Insurance Law does not provide a clear definition of the term “center of life,” leaving its interpretation to the discretion of officials (of the National Insurance Institute, “Bituach Leumi”) and courts. In each specific case, it is necessary to evaluate a combination of factors to determine whether a person is a resident of Israel. This situation creates some legal uncertainty, but at the same time allows for consideration of individual circumstances in each case. Specialist lawyers are guided by principles

Introduction The Tel Aviv-Jaffa Family Court considered a complex case about a mother’s temporary relocation abroad with her 4-year-old child for educational purposes. The court had to balance a parent’s right to self-realization with the child’s interests. Case Circumstances The child’s parents, immigrants from the former USSR, married in 2012 and moved to Israel in 2013. Both parents have Russian and Israeli citizenship. The mother is Christian, the father is Jewish, and their daughter, born in 2020, has no religious affiliation. The mother holds a Ph.D. and works in academia, while the father works in the high-tech sector. The couple separated in 2023, and some time later, the mother decided to move with the child to the USA for a postdoctoral fellowship, but the father objected, leading to a legal dispute. Parties’ Demands The mother asked the court to allow her to move with her daughter to the USA for two years to pursue a postdoctoral fellowship. She argued that she had chosen the most optimal time for the move, as her daughter had not yet started school and would return just in time to begin first grade. The father strongly objected to his daughter’s departure. He explained that there

Introduction In recent years, Israel has tightened its border control policy, leading to an increase in cases of entry refusal and deportation of foreign citizens. In this material, we provide the formal criteria by which the border control system carries out checks at Ben Gurion Airport, as well as an overview of several court decisions with an analysis of specific circumstances and facts. We have already written about the principles that guide border control officers at Ben Gurion Airport. Now we will discuss the specific departmental instruction that the service applies daily and analyze real cases. Here is an excerpt from the main provisions of the directive: Border Control Procedure in Israel Instruction No. 6.4.0010 Area: Border Control and Border Crossing Points Procedure Number: 6.4.0010 Subject: Inspection of Passengers at International Border Crossing Points of Israel Page 1 of 7 (Edition 2) Update Date: 20.7.2017 Population and Immigration Authority, Procedure Number 6.4.0010 Procedure for Inspection of Passengers at International Border Crossing Points of Israel Purpose of the Procedure Article 1(a) of the Entry into Israel Law, 1952 (hereinafter – “Entry into Israel Law” or “Law”) establishes that a person who is not a citizen of Israel may enter Israel with

According to Israel’s Law of Return, every halakhic Jew, as well as a son or grandson of a Jew, has the right to repatriate and obtain Israeli citizenship. However, this right is not absolute – it is limited for applicants with a criminal past who potentially pose a threat to the country’s security and public order. Difference in approaches between the Ministry of Interior and the courts In practice, the question of who poses such a threat is often interpreted differently by the Israeli Ministry of Interior (MOI) and the courts. A special departmental instruction defines “criminal past” quite broadly – it includes not only situations in which a person was found guilty of committing crimes, but sometimes even the mere fact of being a suspect, the initiation of a criminal case, even if the case was subsequently terminated or ended in an acquittal. The MOI is also entitled to take into account information about the applicant’s criminal record obtained from law enforcement agencies of the country of origin, even if the case did not reach court. But the court has a different position. The High Court of Justice of Israel in its precedent-setting decisions prescribes that the MOI and