Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
09-10-08 Israeli Civil Rights Association v Minister of Justice ( 5917/97) Chief Justice Dorit Beinish: The new case management system (Net Ha-Mishpat) would require restricting public access to court records_Globes (Heb + Eng)

09-10-08 Israeli Civil Rights Association v Minister of Justice ( 5917/97) Chief Justice Dorit Beinish: The new case management system (Net Ha-Mishpat) would require restricting public access to court records_Globes (Heb + Eng)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 43|Likes:
Beinish states that implementation of Net Ha-Mishpat indeed furthers public access to court records, but it poses, on the other hand, complex questions regarding the rights of the parties to the proceedings, first and foremost – the Constitutional Right for Privacy.
Beinish states that implementation of Net Ha-Mishpat indeed furthers public access to court records, but it poses, on the other hand, complex questions regarding the rights of the parties to the proceedings, first and foremost – the Constitutional Right for Privacy.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: SELA - Human Rights Alert - Israel on Mar 13, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/19/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
םדאה
 
תויוכזל
 
גייס
 
Joseph Zernik, PhD
 
ד
" 
קינרצ
 
ףסוי
 
ר
 
PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313, Israel; jz12345@earthlink.net;
91313
 
םילשורי
 
דת
31440
 
 
09-10-08 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel Dorit Beinish: The new casemanagement system (Net Ha-Mishpat) would require restricting public access to courtrecords_Globes
Beinish states that implementation of Net Ha-Mishpat indeed furthers public access to court records, but it poses, on the other hand, complex questions regarding the rights of the parties to the proceedings, first and foremost – the Constitutional Right for Privacy.
Attached: 
#Record Page #
109-10-08 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel Dorit Beinish: The new casemanagement system (Net Ha-Mishpat) would require restricting public access to courtrecords_Globes (English)
 
2209-10-08 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel Dorit Beinish: The new casemanagement system (Net Ha-Mishpat) would require restricting public access to courtrecords_Globes (Hebrew)
 
4
3
09-10-08 Judgment in Israeli
Civil Rights Association v Minister of Justice 
(5917/97) in theSupreme Court of the State of Israel (Hebrew)
6
 
 
GLOBES
Beinish: The new case management system would require restrictingpublic access to court records
Net Ha-Mishpat case management system, being implemented in the courts in Israel,enables direct access to all court records in the various courts, through the internet site of the courts authority.
Noam Sharvit, October 8, 2009
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Dorit Beinish, hints that there is a need to restrict theright to access court records, because of the intrusion into privacy of the parties andothers involved. She refers to Net Ha-Mishpat case management system, beingimplemented in the courts, which technologically enables direct access to all courtrecords in the various courts, through the internet site of the courts authority.The high court of justice rejected 12 years ago a petition filed by Attorney YaakovShimshi and the Israeli Association for Civil Liberties, challenging the constitutionalityof Regulation 4 of the Courts and Labor Court (Access to Court Records), which requireda person, who is not a party to the case to justify his request.The petition passed numerous transformations given the changes in the law, changes inthe positions of the Ministers of Justice, who have changed during that period, thepositions of other relevant authorities, and practical changes (implementation of theonline electronic case management system).Therefore, the petitions, represented by Attorney Dan Yakir, focused on theconstitutionality of Regulation 4. They argued that the Regulation undermines theconstitutional principle of public proceedings, established in Basic Law, The Judiciary.Therefore, the Regulation amounted to secondary legislations that contradicted the BasicLaw. Furthermore, they argued that the requirement for justification reflects a positionthat there is right of public access to court records to inspect and to copy.Chief Justice Beinish, with Justices Edmond Levy and Asher Grunis concurring, decidedthat the right of public access to court records is derived from the principle of publicproceedings, and therefore, the starting point is that public access should be permitted.She continued to state that the requesting person should succinctly reveal his purpose, inorder to enable the judge/clerk of the court to balance the right to access court recordswith the rights and interests of any objections, or the public at large.
Public proceedings 
Given the limited scope of the justification requirement (which the requester should beable to fulfill with no professional legal assistance), Beinish stated that the harm to theright of public access is very limited, and does not justify even the adjudication of whether it fulfils the “Limitation Paragraph” in
 Basic Law Human Dignity and Liberty
.
 
 “There is no harm here to a protected constitutional right, and even if there is a harm – isnegligible, leaving a wide range for secondary legislation to determine the properarrangements within its authority,” she stated.Therefore, the Justices did not explore alternative arrangements, although they stated(and the State of Israel agreed) that the arrangement proposed by the petitioners, whereby justification for the request to access court records would be required only if there areobjections, is a reasonable arrangement for addressing request for public access to courtrecords.
Efficiency of the proceedings 
According to the Justices, the justification requirement was meant to provide an efficientframework for review of the requests to access court records. The justification enablesthe judge to estimate the validity of the access right of the requester, since the weight of arequest based on prurience alone is lesser than the that of a request based on study orresearch.Furthermore, the justification requirement assists the courts in identifying situations,where there may be concern that public access to the records would be misused orabused. The justification also enables those objecting to the access to respond in afocused and material manner to the request, in case their response was requested.As indicated above, Beinish finally states that implementation of Net Ha-Mishpat indeedfurthers public access to court records, but it poses, on the other hand, complex questionsregarding the rights of the parties to the proceedings, first and foremost – theConstitutional Right for Privacy.“Conditions that have emerged, require that the subject not be left with no treatment,adequate for the developments and new circumstances that have been created. It is timefor review of the
 Regulations: Public Access to Court Records
on the background of thisnew reality,” she decided. (High Court of Justice 5917/97).

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->