In the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779 - 2019 No instruction is identical to the instruction Regulation 26 The old regulations, however, assume that the court has the authority to approve the addition of a foreign party to the proceeding by virtue of its authority In Regulation 46 to the Regulations (Rosen Zvi above, and Civil Appeal Authority 496/23 M.R.R.G. Entrepreneurship in Tax Appeal v. M.A.G.N. Consulting and Asset Management in Tax Appeals (31/5/2023)).
- The Civil Procedure Regulations of 2019 do not apply to the Maritime Court sitting as a court for a maritime client. The 2025 regulations also do not adopt the Civil Procedure Regulations, but are content with granting the court the authority to act according to them. Thus Regulation 15 The 2025 Regulations state:
In a matter that has not been regulated in these Regulations or in the Client Regulations, the court may proceed with a claim for the confiscation of a ship in accordance with the Civil Procedure Regulations, with the necessary changes, if it deems it necessary for the purpose of deciding a claim for the confiscation of a ship and conducting the proceeding in a fair and efficient manner.
- Even if the court is authorized to adopt arrangements from the Civil Procedure Regulations, the Applicants did not specify at all why this should be done in the present case. Moreover, the applicants do not claim any proprietary right in the vessel, and their addition to the proceeding is not intended to protect a proprietary right, but rather their right to realize a foreclosure imposed after the seizure of the vessel. As explained above, foreclosure does not grant the foreclosure a proprietary right in the property, but only a procedural right whose purpose is to prevent the property from being taken out of the owner's hands.
- Moreover, the confiscation proceeding is a unique procedure in which the State petitions for the transfer of the property rights in the vessels seized into its hands. The questions that will be clarified in the proceeding are different from those that may be clarified in the hearing of the applicants' claiMs. Attaching the applicants' claim will not assist in deciding the confiscation claim and will not assist in conducting the hearing effectively. On the contrary, the addition of the applicants, who do not base their arguments on the client's law and its regulations, and do not claim grounds for an object claim, will only make the proceedings more difficult.
- The applicants' application also suffers from additional difficulties. The applicants base their cause of action on the claim of the connection between Hamas and the flotilla organizers, but do not present evidence regarding the organization's ownership of the various flotilla ships. The seizure orders on which the application is based imposed seizures on Hamas vessels held by the State of Israel and on the ship handala. In order to succeed in their application, the applicants must be convinced that the state is in possession of vessels owned by the Hamas organization, since the seizure orders apply only to vessels owned by the organization.
- According to the Client Law, once a vessel is seized, the occupying state must immediately bring it to the ratification of the seizure and a hearing on a request for confiscation in court. From the moment the court is approached, the state is subject to the court's instructions, which decides what will be done with the vessels, who will keep them until the decision is made on the confiscation request, who will be subject to a duty of guard, and so on. From the date of submission of the application, the vessels are held by the state, only by virtue of a court order, and therefore the "holder" of the vessel is the court and not the state.
- It should be recalled that in accordance with the law and the provisions Article 28 to the Execution Law, 5727 - 1967, the applicants' burden is on proving that the vessels are owned by the Hamas organization (see Civil Appeal 1680/03 Levy v. Barkol, IsrSC 58(6) 841 (2004); Civil Appeal (Haifa) 4431/07 Discovering the Beauty of the Tax Appeal v. Gur (22/6/2008)).
In order to persuade the vessels that the vessels are owned by the Hamas organization, the applicants must take appropriate action according to the Section 28(b) to the Writ of Execution Law. It is possible that the applicants should also apply to the competent court in order to determine who the owners of the vessel are (see Section 28(c) to the Execution Law). In such a case, the applicants must add to the proceeding anyone who registers and claims ownership of the vessel. As long as no judicial decision is presented according to which Hamas has property rights in the vessels or part thereof, the seizure orders do not establish any interest of the applicants in the vessels seized by the flotillas.
- Here I will note, on a side note, that significant questions may arise regarding the law that applies to the determination of property rights in the vessel, since all the vessels that were seized are registered in foreign registers. Registration in the vessel registry creates a presumption of ownership of it. In Israeli law, the presumption can be contradicted, since In section 83 of the Shipping (Vessels) Law, 5720 - 1960 said: "Registration in the registry does not guarantee the right to property [...]", however, the validity of registration in the registry of a foreign vessel is contingent on the relevant law, which may differ from Israeli law. Therefore, the applicants are expected to have a long way to go to prove the property rights of the Hamas organization in the various vessels.
- Even if it is determined that the vessels are owned by the Hamas organization and have been lawfully seized by the applicants, it will still be necessary to discuss the competition between the state's right to confiscate the vessels and the applicants' interest under the seizure orders, which were issued after the date of the seizure. This competition is likely to raise serious questions, such as the date on which the state's right to confiscation arises, whether at the time of seizure, the date of submission of the confiscation request, etc., and the date on which the vessels were seized. It will also be necessary to define the nature of the state's right and decide whether or not the right of confiscation prevails over a foreclosure imposed to collect the owner's debt. All of these are not addressed in the applicants' application.
All of the above is sufficient to determine that even if there was room to examine the addition of the applicants to the proceeding in accordance with the Civil Procedure Regulations, the application does not establish sufficient grounds for joining.