Thus, the main question is whether the failure to deliver the alleged notice is rooted in improper conduct on the part of the recipient or whether it is due to a fault external to him, which does not stem from his own conduct.
- The Postal Authority usually describes the reason for not delivering the mail to its destination. Thus, the reason "not required" is known, just as the Supreme Court described in the Kerem case, where the reason for the non-delivery lies in the recipient's refusal to collect the mail item. Another reason for the mail not reaching its destination may be a change in the recipient's place of residence without updating his address, in contravention of his obligation under the Population Registry Law. In both of these cases, the failure to deliver the mail is rooted in conduct perceived as improper on the part of the recipient.
- What about a mail item that was returned due to "a recipient is not known at the address"? A review of the case law reveals different approaches to this ground. For example, other municipal applications (Jerusalem Department) 14970-05-24 Kleiner v. Irit Y.Rochelim [Nevo] (May 12, 2024), the court held that in view of the presumption and the fact that the letters were sent by registered mail on behalf of the appellant in the Population Registry, "the appellant cannot be heard on the claim that they did not reach their destination", since the appellant did not explain how it is possible that letters sent to his registered address returned with a note that is not known in the address.
On the other hand, in a criminal case - Extension of Trial Date (Local in Yesha) 46885-07-20 Elkar Dvir in Tax Appeal v. Afula Municipality [Nevo] (December 4, 2020), a different opinion was expressed, also relying on the Kerem case:
"I am of the opinion that in such cases, if the recipient proves that the address to which the mail was sent is a correct and existential address and that it was registered - at the time of the delivery of the mail - in the Population Registry (and in the case of companies - with the Registrar of Companies), and if he proves that at that time he was actually at the same address, and yet the result of the delivery by mail was that the recipient is not known at the address, then he discharges the duty of proof that the mail item was not delivered to him not because he refrained from receiving it, and thus the presumption of delivery is concealed. In such a case, it is also not possible to attribute to the recipient fault or non-fulfillment of any duties imposed on him by law for which he was not served with the mail, when the actual failure to deliver the mail was not the result of the recipient's default, and therefore there is no justification in this case for that "normative determination that credits to the recipient's duty not to fulfill the obligations imposed on him by law to update an address and to demand registered mail sent to him by a competent authority" [Kerem case, supra, Paragraph 20]."