"The second question that requires examination is whether there is another procedure that seeks to prevent that 'violation'. This requires an examination of that proceeding according to its essence and purpose. One of those other proceedings is a contempt of court proceeding. According to Section 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance. This is a unique proceeding, which, on the one hand, does not impose criminal liability, but on the other hand, is not a purely civil proceeding. 'This is a sui generis provision that is in the same twilight zone between the civil proceeding and the criminal proceeding' (Civil Appeal 371/78 Hadar Lod Taxis in Tax Appeal v. Biton, IsrSC 34(4) 232, at p. 241). The purpose of this proceeding is to bring about the fulfillment of the order and its execution (Civil Appeal 422/77 Ben Ari v. Shapira, IsrSC 32(2) 309). The sanction in it is coercive and not punitive. Hence the approach that section 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 'looks to the future'. It comes to force the execution of an act or omission 'tomorrow' (Criminal Appeal 6/50 Levitt v. Engel, IsrSC 459, at p. 468). Therefore, section 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance does not apply, where enforcement of the provision is no longer possible, either because it has been cancelled (Criminal Appeal 43/50 Salzman v. Ness Ziona Local Council, IsrSC 671), or because between the filing of the application for enforcement and its hearing it has already been fulfilled (Criminal Appeal 6/50 cited), or because a situation has arisen in which it is not possible to uphold the order in the future. Nor should the situation be restored to its previous state (Criminal Appeal 300/74 State of Israel v. Arazi, IsrSC 29(1) 813). On the other hand, if the existence of the order in the future is physically and legally feasible, and there is a reasonable concern - in light of past experience, or for some other reason - that the order will not be fulfilled in the future, there is room to use contempt of court proceedings in order to enforce the order in the future (Civil Appeal 24/78 Vitco Chemicals in Tax Appeal v. Salman, IsrSC 33(3) 101; Criminal Appeal 281/80 Lego M. Lemelstreich in the Tax Appeal v. Bar Ram Ltd., IsrSC 34(4) 557)."
- Section 6(1) To the Ordinance Contempt of court (the full version of which I quoted above in paragraph 135) allows for the use of two sanctions: imprisonment or a fine.
I do not think it is appropriate to start with the severe sanction of imprisonment. I have come to the conclusion that in the case before me, a financial sanction should be applied, in a gradual manner. The financial sanction must be significant and effective, but, on the other hand, there is no room for determining excessive and baseless sums, which at the end of the day, after a period of non-implementation, will reach millions of shekels, and then the Supreme Court will cancel the sanction set by the original court, and will reduce the sums very significantly (see, for example, the judgment of Justice Yitzhak Zamir, according to whom the judge - as she was described at the time - agreed with Dorit Beinisch, and Judge Yitzhak Englard, inCriminal Appeal 8000/98 Yitzhak Mina, Adv. v. Shmuel Jovino, IsrSC 55(4) 481).
- Recently, the Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings dealing with the monetary sanction that should be imposed in cases of contempt of court, with the aim of trying to determine an amount that, on the one hand, will be sufficiently deterrent and will constitute an incentive to carry out the judgment, and on the other hand, will not, after a while, constitute an unreasonable fine, which will make it difficult for a court to order its collection.
An example of this is the Kugler, which employed the Tel Aviv District Court and the Supreme Court in 2006 and 2007, and which dealt with the way to enforce the transfer of shares between the parties (the description of the proceedings is found in the last judgment given by Justice Uzi Fogelman, who according to him, was joined by Vice President Eliezer Rivlin and Judge Ayala Procaccia, inCriminal Appeal 6807/06 Yehuda Kugler N. Asher Kugler, [Published in Nevo], given on the 13th of Tishrei 5768 (25.9.07)).