As to the Applicant's claim that he does not know what to defend against, the Respondent claims that the Applicant was one of the publishers of the publications that constitute defamation, and that he himself contacted the Weizmann-Yaar Investigation Office, in order to open an investigation against the Respondent. Therefore, the applicant also knows the claims attributed to him. Therefore, he has no impediment to defending himself, because all the works that are at the basis of the cause of action are known to him, since he himself committed the acts that constitute defamation.
In addition, the burden of proof as to the existence of the protections under the Prohibition of Defamation Law is on the advertiser, i.e., on the applicant in our case, andtherefore, on the applicant to prove his defense and not the other way around.
With regard to the claim of lack of substantive jurisdiction, the Respondent argues that the provisions of the Sports Law do not apply to him, since the present case does not fall within the scope of the disputes defined in the Sports Law and the Bylaws of the Arbitration Institution as requiring a decision in the framework of the arbitration proceeding of the Football Association, and therefore the court here has the authority to hear the claim.
During the period relevant to the lawsuit, in which the wrongful acts were committed against the plaintiff - in May 2012 onwards, the respondent did not serve as a trustee in the stay of proceedings of the group, since on February 13, 2012, the Nazareth District Court issued a decision, according to which the respondent's role as a trustee in the stay of proceedings of the group ends, after 21 days have passed from the date of the aforementioned decision. It was further argued that the respondent is not considered an "official", as defined in the Sports Law, because he was appointed by the court and is considered his long arm. Therefore, the authority to decide the dispute that relates to it is in the hands of the court that appointed him - the Nazareth District Court, since according to the case law, personal claims related to the role of a trustee in the stay of proceedings are heard before the court that appointed him.