Human Rights Alert (NGO)

(NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

"
PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv, Israel
6133301 ",33407 "
Fax: 077-3179186 Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org

2014-11-20 Moran Genosar v Israel Electric Company (1326-04-14) in the Tel

Aviv Labor Court - denal of party's access to court records
- ( "1326-04-14)

[]

Statement of Joseph Zernik, PhD

1. On November 20, 2014, I visited the Tel-Aviv Labor Court with Mr Moran Genosar, to witness
his attempt to access his own court file in Genosar v Israel Electric Company (1326-04-14).
2. Genosar filed with the staff of the office of the clerk the prepared form "Notice of Inspection of
Court File" for party in a case, based on the Regulations of the Courts - Office of the Clerk Inspection of Court Files. [1]
3. The form submitted by Genosar also referred to the High Court of Justice decision in this
matter: Association of Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice (5917/97). [2]
4. The form lists in details the records in the court file that Genosar sought to inspect, including
lists of parties, counsel, requests, decisions (the Israeli dockets are split into a number of lists),
certificates of counsel, and the respective records themselves.
5. The first staff member, who took the form, did not stamp it "Received", as requested. Instead,
she stamped it only "Filed".
6. Upon explicit request, she refused to sign her name in the indicated space on the stamp, and
also refused to identify herself by full name.
7. I have witnessed numerous similar cases of conduct by state employees, typically, when they
intend not to follow the provisions of the law in various matters.
8. The same staff member then refused to provide printouts from the IT system of the court of the
records in the court file in reference. First she suggested that she would forward the paper to
Judge Ariela Giltzer-Katz to decide on the matter.
9. At this point, I intervened and informed the staff members that the paper that was filed by
Genosar was not a "Request", but a "Notice", and that according to Israeli law there was no
need for the Judge to decide on the matter. It was Genosar's right as a party to inspect the court
file.
10. The staff member still refused to provide printouts of the records in the court file to Genosar.
At the end she printed out only 34 pages, which she claimed were copies of the decisions in the
case.
11. However, she refused to print out even the list of decision, so that Genosar could
independently check that he received copies of all decisions in the court file.
12. The staff member agreed to verbally provide additional information, without providing the
relevant records:
She said that the court file on that date included 17 decisions.
She said that the court file included no Certificates of Counsel in the designated area of the
system.
13. When we pressed for copies of the rest of the records, she claimed that a party to a case has no
right to inspect the court file if the party was represented by an attorney.
14. When we insisted on Genosar's right to inspect the court file, the staff member referred us to
her supervisor.

1/4

15. The Supervisor asked me what law said that a party had the right to inspect his court file.
16. I answered that the relevant law was cited in the "Notice of Inspection" that Genosar filed:
The Regulations of the Courts - Office of the Clerk - Inspection of Court Files
Decision of the High Court of Justice in Association of Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of
Justice (5917/97).
17. The Supervisor answered that it did not matter. They had their own procedures.
18. When I insisted, the Supervisor referred me to the Chief Clerk of the Court Orly Hammer.
19. Hammer supported the position of the staff members. First Hammer claimed that the right to
inspect court files did not include the right to obtain copies of the records.
20. I therefore suggested to Chief Clerk Hammer that since this is an electronic court file, if
Genosar did not receive the printouts, the only other way to inspect the court file could be
inspection on a computer terminal directly. Hammer answered that there was no computer
terminal that she could permit Genosar to use.
21. In my opinion, conduct of Chief Clerk Orly Hammer in this matter constituted a serious
violation of the law of the State of Israel, and also serious violation of Human Rights of
Genosar.
22. The common law right to access court records, to inspect and to copy, is known for hundreds
of years as the key mechanism for enabling the people to keep a watchful eye on the courts.
Therefore, the denial of party's access to his own court file must raise serious concerns
regarding the integrity of the Tel-Aviv Labor Court.
23. The incident was not unique. I have witnessed similar conduct in other courts in the State of
Israel, e.g., the Haifa Magistrate Court and the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court.
24. Following the visit to the Court, I also accessed the same court file through Net HaMishpat
from a remote terminal. [3] The system showed only one (1) decision in the same court file.
25. The data, which are provided from a remote terminal in this court file and most others, is
selective, false and misleading.
26. The maintenance of double books, such that parties, who access Net HaMishpat from remote
terminals obtain false data, is particularly alarming, and should be deemed a built-in, systemic
corruption.
27. Such conduct also demonstrates how IT systems of the courts, which were supposed to
increase transparency, are in fact employed to deny access and prevent transparency.
November 23, 2014

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)
OccupyTLV
_______
LINKS:
[1] 2014-11-20 Moran Genosar v Israel Electric Companty (1326-04-14) in the Tel-Aviv Regional Labor Court Notice by Party of Inspection of Court File
- ( 1326-04-14)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/247832765/
[2] 2009-10-08 Israeli Civil Rights Association v Minister of Justice et al ( 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)
.(( ) "8.10.09 ' )" 5917/97 "
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50621508/

2/4

 [3] 2014-11-22 Moran Genosar v Electric Company (1326-04-14) in the Tel-Aviv Regional Labor Courtinspection of court file - public remote terminal
) (1326-04-14 - -
https://www.scribd.com/doc/247854621/
_________________________________________

'
.1 20 ,2014 , "
) (1326-04-14 .
.2 " " , .
, , [1] .
.3 " , :
[2] .(5917/97) .
.4 , ,
, , , , )
) (DOCKET , ( .
.
.5 ,
"/" , . , "".
.6 , ,
.
.7 ,"
.
.8 .
-
.
.9 , "" "" ,
,
.
.10 .
34 , .
.11 ,
.
.12 " , :
17.
.13
.14
.15
.16

.
,
.
, .
.
"" :
-

.17
.18
.19
.20
.21
.22

" : )(5917/97
, "" .
, " .
.
.
, , ,
.
.
,
.
, ,
. , ,
".

3/4

 .23 " .
".
.24 " ,
[3] . ) (1 .
.25 , .
.26 ,
, , .
.27 , ,
.
232014 ,

'
)(NGO
"

4/4