: בג"ץ קוונטינסקי נ' הכנסת בעניין מס דירה שלישית: החלטה מתבקשת או "סטייה רבתי" בלתי מוצדקת מההלכה הפסוקה?

This article analyzes the judgment of the Supreme Court of Israel in HCJ 10042/16 Quantinsky v. the Israeli Knesset, which invalidated the “Third Apartment Tax” provisions in the Arrangements Law. This is one of the most important judgments in the field of judicial review of the legislative process and the first case that invalidated a law due to defects in its legislative process. The article argues that the judgment is characterized by a considerable gap between the positions of the Justices in the majority to the dissent opinion in characterizing the judgment and its relationship to the Poultry Growers case – the landmark precedent in the field. While the majority Justices view their decision as a necessary, almost inevitable, application of the Poultry Growers case (or, at least, as a necessary refinement), the dissenting Justice presents their decision as no less than a major deviation from the case law. The article focuses on exploring this gap and discusses three main questions: (A) Does correct implementation of the standards established in the Poultry Growers case on the circumstances of the current case lead to invalidation of the law? (B) To what extent does the current decision develops and expands the existing case-law? (C) Is this expansion appropriate?