And the analogy: This court, in its current composition, devotes three days a week to serious crimes and appeals, and in addition to this, it has been assigned many civil cases, and only a short time ago, it was determined that this panel will handle about sixty lawsuits filed against the Palestinian Authority, with all the complexity of these cases, from a legal and factual point of view. Based on the scope of work described above, adding this receivership portfolio will be an additional burden on my busy schedule.
But what bothers me more is the precedent itself, and the expected flood of similar requests for the appointment of receivers, in every financial claim in which the plaintiff has been awarded significant sums, on the grounds that the execution proceedings are ineffective.
- However, after placing these considerations, on the one hand, the scales were decided by the data system detailed throughout this decision, and the need to protect the rule of law, and the enormous judicial time invested by the first arbitrator, retired Judge Yaakov Bezalel, Judge Boaz Okun, the second arbitrator, retired President Vardi Ziller, and this Court (both in the current panel, and in various other motions, which were heard before other judges, Among them: the judge (then the registrar), Gila Kanfi-Steinitz, and the judge - as he was then called - Jonathan Adiel) will go down the drain, when the respondent will have a sense of victory, according to which he, by means of postponement and the submission of many motions (some of which were futile), managed to deal with the judicial system, and overcame it.
- Sometimes, it is not only the concrete case that justifies focused and perhaps even exceptional action, due to the circumstances of the case, and this is how I explained the reasons for my decision above. However, there is often an obligation to consider systemic considerations, not only in terms of efficiency and harm to the litigant public as a whole, to which the judge's judicial time must be devoted (in the spirit of the decisions of Justices Grunis and Naor, quoted above in paragraphs 111-114), but also systemic considerations of educating the public to uphold the law and respect the rulings. This matter is true, according to you, in any event, but it is doubly justified to implement it in the case before me, due to its special circumstances, and the quasi-public nature of the case, which deals with a soccer team, which has a large fan base, which follows this case (in some of the proceedings the hall was too narrow to accommodate the fans, and some of them waited outside the hall or replaced their friends "in shifts").
In order not to misinterpret my words, I will add and explain that this court does not "respond" to the demands of the fans; However, when a court is of the opinion that there is a case that justifies the appointment of a receiver, after a judgment, and the case before me falls within this category, then against the systemic reasoning of the judicial time devoted to the public, and in order to "offset" this reasoning, it is possible to take into account the opposite public consideration, which relates to the fans.