... As stated, the existing bylaws are irrelevant, nor is it relevant what the goals were at the time.
... The association has carried out an orderly procedure of changing goals, and is acting according to them to the satisfaction of the regulators authorized to supervise this activity."
According to the defendant, it is acting lawfully and in accordance with the criteria set by the bodies that budget it with regard to accepting candidates for membership in it, or rejecting such applications, and in any case it is not obligated to accept anyone who wishes to do so.
- In the statement of defense she filed in a civil case 12265-09-23, [Nevo] The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the plaintiff filed the statement of claim without any basis in law, out of emotional and aggressive motives and out of a desire to quarrel with the defendant.
The defendant detailed how, according to her, the plaintiff violated the defendant's rules and the rules of competition, in the framework of which he expressed himself in a blatant and crude manner, which, in her opinion, justified the first decision in his case. According to her, the things he published in the framework of the post as described above, are not only inappropriate, but they show that his apology given to the court was not sincere, and as a result of this publication she believes that there was room to make the second decision in his case, and to remove him from the coaches' area in competitions as detailed above.
The defendant denied the other claims of the plaintiff against her, and claimed that she was conducting herself lawfully and properly.
- The plaintiffs were testified by plaintiff No. 1, Mr. Glam, plaintiff No. 2, Mr. Dudi Ben Zaken, and plaintiff No. 15, Ms. Noa Lifshitz.
The defendant was testified by Mr. Moshe Ben Shimol, who served as the Association's CEO from November 2021 to July 2025.
- The plaintiffs' argument is correct that the defendant is a "dual entity" and therefore it is subject to "normative duality", i.e., it is subject to duties in the field of public law, alongside the duties that apply to it under civil law, as it is an entity incorporated within the framework of private law. This is due to the public nature of its activity, and when it enjoys financial support from public sources on a considerable scale, as detailed above. Among other things, the defendant, as a dual entity, has obligations to act reasonably, fairly, with equality, and without arbitrariness and on the basis of practical considerations, while avoiding the consideration of extraneous considerations, transparently and while observing the rules of natural justice (See, inter alia, for this matter, Civil Appeal 1155/20 Yitzhak Eini v. Mordechai Shaul [Nevo] (7.12.2021) Opening Stimulus (Tel Aviv) 1027/02 Aviv Giladi Productions in Tax Appeal v. Israel Football Association [Nevo] (74/2003) at paras. 8-10; Opening Stimulus (Tel Aviv) 504/07 Charlton BTax Appeal v. Director of the Men's Basketball Premier League (2002) inTax Appeal [Nevo] (August 7, 2007) in paragraph 12 of the judgment; and the opening stimulus 18939-10-17 Tal Lavie v. Israel Handball Association [Nevo] (December 30, 2018), paras. 35-36 See more on this matter A. Harel, a dual body as a handiwork of the legislature in the mirror Sports Law, תשRetrial - 1988, Legal Proceedings 9 (5771) 419; And so is A. Harel, Dual-Essence Bodies and Officers (2nd edition, 2019), in chapters 1, 2 and 4).
According to the ruling, the court will exercise extreme caution when asked to intervene in the decisions of sports associations, as a rule, but given significant administrative flaws in their actions, certainly those that violate the rights of the association's members, or third parties, the court may intervene in the decisions. When it comes to monopolistic bodies in their field, there will be an increase in the tendency to intervene in decisions that are plagued by administrative flaws, in light of the weight of such bodies in the public sphere. It should be noted, in this regard, that official sports associations, such as the defendant, are ordinarily monopolistic bodies in the various sports fields, in view of the definition of the term "association" in section 1 of the Sports Law as "... a corporation that is not for the purpose of profit, that coordinates and represents a sport or branches in Israel and that is recognized by the international bodies that represent and recognize that sport", and in any case the courts do not refrain from intervening in the decisions of these bodies, when they suffer from flaws in the field of administrative law (Harel, a dual-essence body as a handiwork of the legislature in the light of the Sports Law, cited above, at pp. 442-447 ).