Caselaw

Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 37200/06 Ziegelman Inbar v. Tivon Girls Football Club

November 16, 2006
Print

The Courts

Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrate’s Court A 037200/06
 
Before: The Honorable Judge Avi Zamir Date: 16/11/2006

 

 

In the matter: Zigelman Inbar
By Attorney Reuven The Appellant
Against
Tivon Girls Football Club
By Attorney Beautiful The Respondent

 

 

Judgment

  1. This is an appeal according to The Sports Law, Retrial - 1988 (Hereinafter: the "Sports Law").
  2. The appellant, Inbar Zigelman (through her father, Dov Ziegelman) (hereinafter: "the appellant"), born in 1989, wishes to release her from activity with the respondent and to order her to be released from its ranks immediately to any other sports association (especially ASA Tel Aviv).
  3. The appeal relied on the provision of Section 11A(A4) of the Sports Law, according to which: "If the continuation of his activity in the association of an athlete who is under the age of 18 is unreasonable or impossible, for reasons that are not dependent on him, or his continued activity as aforesaid may cause him real damage, he may notify him of his desire to transfer to another association and he may transfer to any other association within 30 days from the date of his notice; The association did not agree to the transfer of the athlete as aforesaid, and a judge appointed according to the instructions of the Article 12, at the request of the athlete, that the continuation of his activity in the Association is unreasonable or impossible, for reasons that are not dependent on him, or that his continued activity as aforesaid may cause him real damage, the athlete may transfer from the Association to any other Association, within 30 days from the date of the judge's decision and under the conditions he has set".
  4. The respondent objects to the appellant's release, hence the proceeding before me.
  5. The aforementioned version of Section 11A(A4) Included in the amendment to the Sports Law, dated March 19, 2001. The purpose of the amendment was clarified in the decision of the Honorable President Edna Bekenstein in the opening motion (Shalom Tel Aviv) 105460/01 Levy v.  Beitar Beer Sheva Sports Association (granted on December 18, 2001); As she stated: "...  It is not for nothing that the legislature distinguished between underage players of different ages, and adult players.  The amendment of March 19, 2001 emphasized the distinction, since it is not possible to bind a minor, who is at the beginning of his career and has not yet made up his mind, to this or that team or any sports association, just because he began his first steps in sports...  The purpose of the legislation, which is expressed in the aforementioned amendment to the Sports Law, is to protect underage athletes from the takeover of the best among them by one sports association or another, without giving them the opportunity to mobilize and choose the team and association in which they will find their place, both from a sporting point of view, socially and personally...  It is inconceivable that from the moment an athlete registered with the Association as a minor, he was deprived of the fundamental rights granted to every employee in any workplace, i.e., he was deprived of the right to free transfer as an athlete from one association to another.  It is inconceivable that when parents sign a form for their minor children, and even if no agreement is signed with the Association, the parents' signature on that form actually determines the future of their athlete child.  The legislature came and established a flexible transfer of athletes, especially minors, as mentioned above.".

However, the Honorable President Bekenstein clarified, in a different decision, in an opening stimulus (Shalom Tel Aviv) 177116/01 Oved v.  Maccabi Civil Case (given on January 24, 2002), that this is not an automatic release, which depends only on the wishes of that actor, but rather, he must prove that the requirement of the law has been met, i.e., the continuation of unreasonable or impossible activity or one that may cause real damage.  It was therefore held that "The shortening of the waiting period will be determined by the judge within the framework of these provisions of the law, not on the basis of the subjective feelings and desires of the appellant or his father, but according to the objective criteria set by the legislature".

1
23Next part