## Facts

- An environmental NGO authorized to file public objections challenged statutory amendments to Israel’s Planning and Building Law enacted through the Economic Arrangements Law (2002).
- The amendments created a National Infrastructure Committee within the national planning framework and authorized expedited planning for projects declared nationally important by senior ministers.
- The statutory scheme treated certain national infrastructure plans as having both master-plan and detailed-plan effect and imposed shortened time limits for environmental impact statements and for filing public objections.
- The NGO claimed the compressed procedures materially impaired environmental review and meaningful public participation for large projects with potentially serious environmental effects.
- The petition sought invalidation of the amendments as unconstitutional under Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and, alternatively, as unlawful under administrative-law standards.
- The court had issued a conditional order to show cause; the judgment addressed the merits after the state opposed that order.

## Issues

1. Whether Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty includes a freestanding constitutional right to a suitable or clean environment.
2. Whether environmental degradation can violate constitutional rights (life, bodily integrity, or human dignity) only when it creates a real, concrete danger to life or health.
3. Whether the expedited planning provisions (including shortened deadlines for environmental assessment and objections) violate constitutional rights and, if so, whether any infringement is justified under the limitations clause.
4. Whether the statutory mechanisms restricting environmental review and objections are unlawful under administrative-law reasonableness and proportionality review.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the petition and canceled the conditional order.
- The court held that Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty does not create a general, standalone constitutional right to environmental quality.
- The court recognized that extreme environmental harms may implicate existing constitutional rights (especially life and bodily integrity) only upon a showing of concrete and substantial danger.
- The petitioner failed to prove that the challenged statutory procedures created a real and concrete danger to life or bodily integrity; therefore, no constitutional violation was established.
- The court noted that specific administrative decisions made under the framework remain reviewable under ordinary administrative-law doctrines.

## Legal Principles

- Not every important public value is a constitutional right; environmental quality, as such, is not protected as an independent constitutional right under Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.
- Environmental harm, standing alone, does not establish a violation of the constitutional rights to life or bodily integrity; a concrete, substantial danger must be shown.
- A limited, derivative constitutional protection may arise where environmental conditions endanger life or bodily integrity; this does not amount to a general entitlement to environmental quality.
- Facial invalidation of planning legislation requires proof of infringement of a protected constitutional right; absent such proof, the court need not proceed to limitations-clause justification.
- Even without a freestanding constitutional environmental right, project-specific decisions remain subject to administrative-law review, including reasonableness, proportionality, and consideration of relevant factors.

## Conclusion

The court upheld expedited national-infrastructure planning amendments, rejecting a standalone constitutional environmental right while allowing constitutional protection only in severe cases where environmental harm creates a concrete danger to life or bodily integrity and preserving administrative-law review of particular planning decisions.


Isr. Union for Env’t Def. v. Prime Minister of Isr., HCJ 4128/02, 58(3) PD 503 (Isr. 2004)