"Spouse" Abuse- After 45 Years of Marriage, Widow Not Entitled to Inheritance

Earlier this month, in the case of In Re: YA, the Tel Aviv Family Court, Judge Shifra Glick, ruled that the widow, C.A., was not entitled to inherit her husband, Y.A.'s estate even though they had been married for 45 years.

The court based its decision on its interpretation of the word "בן זוג- spouse" in the Succession Law-1965 and the purpose of the inheritance law.

Repost: Israel Hayom | High Court petitioned to stop state funding of yeshiva students

Israel Hayom | High Court petitioned to stop state funding of yeshiva students

Nongovernmental organizations argue that following expiration of Tal Law, students are no longer eligible to receive state funds, which amounted to some 30 million shekels ($7.4 million) per month • Petitioners claim that since Tal Law has expired, there is no longer a legal basis to exempt the yeshiva students from military service. Zvi Harel Ultra-Orthodox men near the Tel Hashomer IDF Induction Center. [Archives] With the Tal Law no longer in effect, the fate of Yeshiva funding is up in the air. | Photo credit: Moshe Shai The government should stop funding 54,000 yeshiva students who can no longer claim exemption from military service following the expiration of the Tal Law according to a petition filed Tuesday with the High Court of Justice. The petition, filed by Hiddush and Free Israel (two nongovernmental organizations promoting religious freedom and equality), the Forum for Equal Service and former MK Ronny Brison (Shinui), argue that the criteria for funding for yeshiva students includes those who are exempt from military service in accordance with the Tal Law. They claim that before the law expired, 54,000 students were eligible to receive government funds, but the legal situation now does not make them eligible for the funds. The Tal Law, which exempted ultra-Orthodox men from mandatory military service, expired on Aug. 1. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has instructed the Israel Defense Forces to reinstate the last version of the Defense Service Law, from 1968, and to submit, within one month, a practical proposal regarding the implementation of the law in the ultra-Orthodox community. This would serve as a temporary solution until the Knesset legislates a new law that permanently regulates the ultra-Orthodox draft. Shahar Ilan, vice president of Hiddush, estimates that funding for yeshiva students while the Tal Law was in force, was around 30 million shekels ($7.4 million) per month and 400 million shekels ($99 million) annually. Attorney for the petitioners, Gilad Barnea, wrote in the petition that as the Tal Law has expired, there is no longer a legal basis to exempt the yeshiva students from military service. Attorney Rabbi Uri Regev, executive director of Hiddush, said the principle must be clear. "Whoever does not serve must and should not receive funds from the state. Any attempt to transfer the funds is a clear violation of the law."

Repost: No Defense to Copyright Infringement After Notice

Reposted from the IP Factor Blog:

Family of Lexicographer Even Shushan Receives Compensation from Publisher for Copyright Infringement

The Israel Supreme Court has ruled that the publishers "Tarbut l’Am" (lit. culture for the people) should compensate the inheritors of the lexicographer Abraham Even Shushan for dictionaries sold since 1999.

Back in 1993, some 9 years after the lexicographer passed away, the descendents of Even Shushan, Dafna Shefer, Yuval Even Shushan and Miriam Even Shushan sued publishers Kiryat Sefer (Book-Town), and in 1998, Judge Esther Chayet, then of the District Court, issued an injunction against the publishers, preventing direct or indirect sales of the dictionary, and ordering that the inheritors receive 10 million Shekels compensation. However, the owner of Kiryat Sefer, Abraham Sivan, left the country and the plaintiffs never received anything.

All Your Work is Belong to Us (for Compensation?)

An article in Haaretz today reports on a recent Supreme Court decision suggesting that the inventor listed on a patent application may be entitled to compensation for a service invention even where he signed an agreement assigning the invention to his employer and waiving his rights to compensation. A service invention, described in Section 132 of the Patent Law, is an invention created during the employees' term of service for the employer and as part of his work which, unless agreed otherwise, belongs to the employer. It is similar to a work for hire in the US copyright context.

I think the article makes two errors (but correct me if I'm wrong).

Short and Sweet Supreme Court Decision

In a decision from yesterday (presumably related to access for Jews to the Temple Mount) the Supreme Court made its point concisely.

"The parties, or some of them, apparently think this case is being handled by this Court in its role as nursery teacher. Last chance: The appellant is requested to submit its request to the municipality pursuant to its announcement from July 9, 2012 and the municipality should review it accordingly. Updates are due by August 31, 2012."  

-Hat Tip- Ariel O.

Asher Grunis to be the Next President of the Supreme Court

Justice Grunis

The Knesset is on its way to passing a law- The Grunis Law- that will change the status quo at the Supreme Court of Israel. The current practice is that when the President of the Court retires at age 70, the next most senior Justice (based on age) becomes the new President, although I don't think that is codified in the law. (See here.) The Courts Law- 1984 provides that the President of the Supreme Court shall be appointed in accordance with Section 4(a) of the Basic Law: The Judiciary which states in turn that "A judge shall be appointed by the President of the State upon election by a Judges' Election Committee." Section 8(c) of the Courts Law states that "a judge may not be appointed to the position of President or Vice President of the Court if he/she cannot serve in this position for at least three years until mandatory retirement under section 13(a)(1)" which mandates that a judge retire at age 70.

The current President, Dorit Beinish, is set to retire in a few months. Justice Grunis, who would replace her, would only serve as President for 2 years and 10 months before turning 70, seemingly disqualifying him from the position. The Knesset's new law would waive the 3 year requirement and apparently not replace with any time requirement at all. According to the JPost the new law would apparently have a two year minimum service requirement, but I didn't see that on the Knesset website. What I read seemed to say that the nomination of a suitable President will be left to the discretion of the Committee.

While the sponsor of the bill Yaakov Katz said that his motivation is to ensure that the country doesn't lose out on a competent President like Justice Grunis because he is 41 days too old, it seems to be an open secret that the cancellation of the law is a political maneuver by Knesset members who approve of Justice Grunis' opposition to judicial activism and reticence to annul laws passed by the Knesset.

I actually worked for Justice Grunis at the Supreme Court last year when I was a foreign law clerk. See my previous post here. I liked him a lot and hope he does become the next President of the Court.

Relatedly, another law is under consideration that will change the makeup of the Election Committee which currently consists of 9 members. Section 4(b) of the Basic Law: The Judiciary currently states that "The Committee shall consist of nine members, namely, the President of the Supreme Court, two other judges of the Supreme Court elected by the body of judges thereof, the Minister of Justice and another Minister designated by the Government, two members of the Knesset elected by the Knesset and two representatives of the Bar Association elected by the National Council of the Chamber. The Minister of Justice shall be the chairman of the Committee." The new law will change the method for appointing the members of the Bar Association. The Chairman of the Bar Association will be one member and another member from the political opposition will be the other. See here.

I admit I don't understand how that will work. It assumes that the Chairman of the Bar Association belongs to a political party. What if he doesn't? Is that possible? Does it seem strange to you that the members of the Bar Association are openly political?