Caselaw

Civil Case (Criminal Appeal) 38177-12-12 Moti Navon v. Radio A-Shams Ltd. - part 17

January 30, 2015
Print

Section 11 of the Sports Law stipulates that the exclusive authority to discuss and decide matters related to activity within the framework of an association or association will be in the hands of the internal judicial institutions.  The term "activity within the framework of an association or association", within the meaning of section 11 of the Sports Law, shall be interpreted in light of the purpose of the Sports Law, which is to transfer disputes related to the subject of sports, to the internal courts of the various associations or associations.

This is how other municipal applications were held 463/90 Israel Basketball Association v.  L.B.N for the Promotion of Women's Basketball et al., IsrSC 44(2), 806:

"In light of what is stated in section 11 of the Sports Law, it is clear that it was not only the intention of the competent authorities in the Association, but also the intention of the legislature, that disputes in matters related to activities within the framework of the Association should be brought before the Association's internal sports institutions.  It has already been determined more than once with regard to voluntary bodies that when they have an internal judicial mechanism, it is appropriate to exhaust those internal judicial proceedings.  This is appropriate both because this is what these voluntary bodies have determined, when everyone who joins them knows and accepts the instructions regarding internal jurisdiction, and because the judicial institutions of these bodies have the knowledge and expertise related to the activities of those bodies."

As explained above, the case law tends to be an expansive interpretation of the authority of the arbitration institution for the Football Association.  Thus in Civil Appeal 1139/99 Kfar Mahula v.  Beit She'an Harod, IsrSC 55 (4) 262, at p.  275:

"In my opinion, too, we should not accept the restrictive approach, which without substantive justification limits the obligation to resort to the arbitration institution, so that it extends to a very small number of disputes."

Previous part1...1617
18...21Next part