In other words, I have returned to the same ruling of the Supreme Court, which relates to Regulation 388, which I am implementing.
In this respect, the respondent before me is no different from Mrs. Cohen-Reich, Mr. Roth, or Dr. Fischer, in each of these cases, a receiver was appointed after a judgment. As I explained above, the circumstances in the case before me are at least identical, and in my opinion, even more serious than those affairs. Therefore, if among them, the justices of the Supreme Court, throughout the generations; M (the Cohen-Reich case is from 1967; the Roth case was ruled in 1992; in the Fisher case the decision was given in 2004), it was determined that there is room to appoint a receiver after a judgment, this is how I rule in the case before me.
Appointment of the Receiver - Conclusions
- The summary of things so far, is that, in principle, I am granting the request inMiscellaneous Requests 7150/07 The above, subject to the conditions and limitations detailed below, and at the conclusion of the entire decision, operative orders will be issued, within the framework of the case law.
- In order to blunt, to a certain extent, the expected burden, and to take into account the considerations detailed in the Roth, I agree to the request in the sense that the receivership will be limited, in the first stage, to six months (the original request referred to a year), with an initial report to be received in two months, and reports will be submitted to me, after which reports will be filed every month (with a file opened in relation to each report). Miscellaneous Civil Applications separately with the specific requests accompanying the report, and thus, I hope that I will not reach in this case the situation described by President Hannah Avnor, as quoted above in paragraph 108), so that I can at the end of the half year consider whether there is room to continue the receivership, or to allow "regular" execution proceedings to be taken.
- Needless to say, if from the reports, it will emerge that additional investigative actions are necessary, then I will consider, in a positive light, an extension of the receiver's term of office, since, as explained above, one of the reasons for the appointment is to prevent the smuggling of property on the part of the respondent.
If I am convinced that this is indeed happening (today, I have before me only the claims of the applicants, without solid evidence, and I must assume, on the basis of the presumption of innocence, that the respondent is not involved in the smuggling of property, unless the contrary is proven by the receiver), I will not allow the respondent to continue on the path of thwarting the implementation of the judgment that was ruled in his favor.
- In this context, I will note that the Respondent is aware that the Receiver does not work for free.
Therefore, the less the respondent's cooperation with the receiver, and the more hours the receiver devotes to the execution of his tasks, and the more property he realizes, the greater the receiver's salary, which will in fact be paid, at the end of the day, out of the respondent's pocket; This, according to the customary practice, is that the receiver's fees are paid, first, from the funds realized by the receiver, and only afterwards does the respondent's debt begin to be repaid.