See also Criminal Case - Extension of Trial Date (Tel Aviv) 8420-01-24 Chen v. State of Israel [Nevo] (February 21, 2024), where it was held that if a letter returned as "unknown in address", this indicates that "the matter of mail was necessarily not brought to the Applicant's attention"; Estate Case (Tel Aviv) 11505-03-20 State of Israel v. Uliel [Nevo] (June 10, 2020); Estate Case (Tel Aviv) 4109-01-21 State of Israel v. Gerias [Nevo] (December 2, 2021); Civil Appeal (B.B.) 59027-06-20 Elkar Dvir in Tax Appeal v. Municipality of BneiBrak [Nevo] (September 14, 2020) and others.
- I am also of the opinion that when the Postal Authority explicitly states that the postal item was returned to the sender because the recipient is not known at the address, and this is when it comes to the registered address of the recipient, as opposed to a situation in which the postal item is "not required", then the presumption of delivery is not fulfilled, since the same moral invalidity of the recipient that the Supreme Court insisted on in the Kerem case (failure to update the address or the absence of collection of the postal item) does not exist. Rather, it is apparently a malfunction of the Postal Authority and not a malfunction of the recipient.
- In other words, the presumption of delivery does not exist with respect to the fine notice of December 19, 2017.
(2) Printed Fine Notices
- So far, with regard to the handwritten fine notices that were sent, according to the defendant, to the plaintiff. In the second stage, the plaintiff was sent printed fine notices. The defendant's declarant stated that he was able to locate the printed report in relation to the offense dated December 18, 2017, as it was sent to the plaintiff on October 9, 2018 (Appendix A to the affidavit that was completed). From all of them, we hear no - in relation to the offense dated June 26, 2017, no printed report sent to the plaintiff was located at all. According to Mr. Tam, this stems from the conversion of the system (p. 47, 28-30).
- The plaintiff's address as it appears on the document Appendix A is "Levinsky 20, Apartment 1, Tel Aviv-Jaffa". However, the Ministry of Interior's records show that already on May 6, 2018 (prior to the delivery of the aforementioned mail), the plaintiff changed his address to 18 Asiri Zion Street, Tel Aviv-Jaffa.
The defendant's version that the address appearing on this document is in fact not the address to which the letter was actually sent, not only is it a suppressed version, which arose after it became clear that the plaintiff's registered address had in fact changed before the letter was sent, but it was also not supported by anything. Moreover, if it is indeed an address that was updated at the time of printing a copy of the document (as claimed in the defendant's summaries), then the address on which it was supposed to appear is the plaintiff's current address - Asiri Zion Street. Thus, even with respect to this document, the presumption of delivery did not arise, since it was not sent to the plaintiff's registered address.