Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 45478-06-14 Freddy David v. Regev Volk

A decision on the applicant's (the defendant's) request to stay proceedings by virtue of section 5(a) of the Arbitration Law, as well as to join the Football Association as a required party and/or as an "amicus curiae".

1. per day 23.6.14 The lawsuit was filed in this case. The Matter of the Prosecution, On the grounds that the defendant published defamation in relation to the plaintiff during a soccer match between the Maccabi Herzliya team in which the plaintiff played and whose coach the defendant is, and another group.
2. per day 21.8.14 The defendant filed (Below: "The Applicant") Application for a stay of proceedings by virtue of Section 5(a) 30Arbitration Law, התשכ"VIII-1968 (hereinafter:"The Arbitration Law"). According to the The Applicant, Challah About the Conflict Provisions of the Arbitration Institution of the Football Association, that the arbitration institution will hear, Among other things "In any dispute and/or a dispute between groups and/or between players and/or between coaches and/or between functionaries, among themselves and/or any of the above subscriptions - and the other, Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) Below" (Subsection 2 Rules that the Arbitration Institute is not authorized to hear claims for personal injury).
3. The Applicant referred to the case law according to which the applicability of the Arbitration Institute's Regulations5 Broad and encompasses all businesses in the football industry, In relation to any matter related to activity within the framework of the Football Association (Civil Appeal Authority 2186/12 Omer N' Melixon et al.', [Published in Nevo] תק-About 2013(2) 6256; Civil Appeal 180/07 Katz N' Israel Basketball Association (Posted inNevo, 4.10.09).
4. Yes it was claimed, Because Sports Law 5748-1988 (hereinafter:"The Law of Sports"), anchors a statutory obligation to hold arbitration proceedings in internal institutions of the sports associations, and that this is not a mere formal matter, Neighbor "In order to hear and decide the lawsuit, a deep understanding of the circumstances surrounding the game of soccer is required, The usual pattern of conduct during and after a soccer match, The dynamic between a coach and his players and between a coach and officials in the team and the significance that can be attributed to what is said during a football game on-Coach's hands to his players".
5. The arbitrators at the Football Association's Arbitration Institute are veteran lawyers with extensive experience in general and in resolving disputes in the field of football in particular. Section 1The' The Arbitration Institute's bylaws state that the law of the bylaws is the same as an arbitration agreement for all intents and purposes, and it constitutes an arbitration deed, and section 3 To the articles of association entitled "Mandatory Arbitration" states that "Any Dispute As detailed In a subsection 2 Above, will be brought for hearing only within the framework of the Arbitration Institution".  The Applicant Emphasize his readiness Do everything necessary to conduct and continue the arbitration.
6. In response to the request, it was claimed, that claims similar to the one in this case were filed in the courts and were heard after various defendants determined that they had the substantive authority to do so. Accordingly, In light of the legal issue enshrined inProhibition of Defamation Law, תשכ"The-1965, The case in question was also submitted to this court, which is competent to hear it.
7. Loaded, that the Arbitration Institute does not discuss matters of tort between the parties, Including defamation lawsuits. There is no impediment to the Football Association dealing with the disciplinary aspect of the matter, However, the disciplinary proceeding does not prevent a civil lawsuit.
8. It was further claimed, Because Advertising Defamation Constitutes An offense for which a criminal complaint can be filed, and the Association Football lacks authority to discuss it. The respondent referred to case law in which similar matters were discussed.  It was further claimed, Because by analogy it is possible to point to similar decisions in the matter of moshavim members, Ottoman Societies and Kibbutzim Members, in which a claim was raised for a stay of proceedings under Arbitration Law and this was rejected.
9. In reply to reply, The Applicant argued that in none of the examples cited about-Respondent's Hands in which the courts heard the claims, Not uploaded to-The parties argued that the dispute should be transferred to the Football Association's arbitration institution, and that these are rulings of the Magistrate's Courts, that are not within the scope of Binding Rule.
10. per day 4.11.14 A hearing was held on the request. At the end of the meeting, the parties agreed to apply for a mediation process within the framework of the"A.
11. per day 7.1.15 The Applicant announced that the mediation process between the parties had ended without a settlement being reached, and filed a motion to order the Football Association to join the request for a stay of proceedings, As a Required Side and/or in the status of "Friend of the Court" Neighbor, Before the dispute regarding arbitration is decided, "It would be right and justified to hear the Association's position, Statutes of Regulations, Both with regard to the rationale underlying the bylaws, and especially with regard to the manner in which its approach should be interpreted, Taking into account proper and desirable judicial and public policy, Among other things, in light of the implications of the decision for the other many members of the Football Association". The Applicant referred to the matter Retrial 7929/96 Kozli v.  State of Israel, IsrSC 35(1), 529, 553 There it was held that "In those cases where there is a third party - who is not involved in the conflict itself - It will be possible to add it as"Friend of the House-The Trial", If he is present in the proceeding in order to contribute to the formulation of the halakha on a particular matter..." According to the Applicant Criteria that were determined in the court”The supreme order to burn as requested, are fully fulfilled in our case.  Yes Noted, that the Association's legal advisor expressed on behalf of the Association his agreement to join the discussion of the case and to voice the Association's position if approval is given to do so.
12. Respondent Responded and claimed that the purpose of the application is "Assign Improvements to the Applicant's Request for a Stay of Proceedings...Not in order to streamline and simplify the discussion...Rather, it's really "Persuasion" The honorable court that the honorable court is not authorized to hear claims of this type". According to the respondent, There is no reason The Justifier The Football Association's Inclusion to Represent the Public Interest.

Discussion