It should be noted that following the aforesaid, the plaintiff applied to the court that gave the judgment in his case, with a request for relief under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, but the request was denied, when it was determined, inter alia, that "... The purpose of the contempt proceeding is not punitive, the remedies prescribed in it are not intended but rather to prevent the recurrence of the violation and to ensure compliance with it in a forward-looking manner...", and when the requested relief is not required for the matter "... Concrete future competition...".
The plaintiff argued in his lawsuit, inter alia, that the defendant was not authorized to impose penalties on him, in the absence of regulations that set rules for matters of discipline, internal jurisdiction, the establishment of internal judicial institutions, and the procedures for hearing them, in contravention of the provision of section 10(a) of the Sports Law, which directs the enactment of regulations, including these matters. He further argued that the defendant breached its duty to conduct independent disciplinary proceedings in its unilateral decision, in which the rules of natural justice were not observed. According to him, the defendant also acted in this case in an attempt to harm his freedom of occupation.
In view of the aforesaid, the plaintiff petitioned for the following remedies:
00"a) to issue an injunction prohibiting the defendant from preventing the plaintiff's participation as a coach in the coaches' position in the competition held by the defendant on October 3, 2023;
0 b) prohibit the defendant by a permanent order from preventing the plaintiff from entering the coaches' premises in the halls where the defendant's competitions are held;
- c) to grant declaratory relief according to which the defendant has no authority not to allow the plaintiff to enter the coaches' premises in the halls where the defendant's competitions are held;
- d) to issue an injunction requiring the defendant to enact bylaws that will regulate the proper management of the jiu-jitsu industry, including regulations regarding discipline and internal jurisdiction, including the internal judicial institutions and the procedures under which they will be discussed;
- e) to issue a permanent restraining order prohibiting the defendant from conducting disciplinary proceedings not in accordance with the Sports Law, as requested above;
- f) To oblige the defendant to grant full right of a plea to anyone against whom it is initiating disciplinary proceedings, which will be carried out in accordance with the above request in accordance with the law.".
- In the statement of defense submitted in the framework of Civil Case 49421-05-23, [Nevo] It was argued, inter alia, that the statement of claim was prepared in a confused manner, that the facts and arguments do not support the remedies sought, and that on its basis "... Wrong axioms...".
According to the defendant, the claim should be dismissed in limine due to the failure to exhaust the administrative procedure, by way of filing complaints with the Registrar of Associations.... Or any other regulator...", when according to the defendant, if the plaintiffs had approached these bodies, they would have received answers from them to their claims.