The original sum determined by the Tel Aviv District Court (Judge Ahituv) as a sanction in the contempt of court proceeding was a payment of ILS 100,000 (ILS 100,000) for each day on which the decision that is the subject of the hearing, regarding the transfer of shares, would not be made, starting the day after the decision (cited in paragraph 1 of the judgment of Judge Vogelman above).
After the shares were transferred, instead of on August 22, 2006, on September 4, 2006 (as stated at the end of paragraph 1 of the aforementioned judgment), the question arose as to whether the delay stemmed from an objective impediment, or not, and whether there was justification for waiting for an appeal, as a reason for not applying the enforcement sanction of contempt of court (with respect to the enforcement purpose of contempt of court proceedings, under section 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance). See the many references cited in paragraph 7 of the judgment).
Without detailing the specific facts of that judgment, it is sufficient for me to note that with regard to the amount of the fine, the parties agreed that the court would decide the amount in accordance with section 79A, of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984. By virtue of this section, the Supreme Court ruled, in paragraph 12 of the judgment, that the fine would be set at ILS 50,000 per day (half of the amount determined by the first instance).
- In the framework of this decision, when I discussed the applicants' first request to appoint a receiver after the judgment, I mentioned several times (see: paragraphs 92, 94, 105, and 116 above) the need to maintain the rule of law, as one of the considerations that led me to accept the applicants' position and to appoint Adv. Yitzhak Mina, the applicants' counsel, as receiver, in light of the judgment.
- The Supreme Court explained that the contempt of court proceeding was also intended, among other things, to fortify the rule of law. This is what Justice Ayala Procaccia said - according to which Justice Asher Grunis and Justice Elyakim Rubinstein agreed - in one of the cases in which the Supreme Court recently discussed the issue of contempt of court.Criminal Appeal 517/06 Boaz Manor N. KPMG Inc ; [Published in Nevo], given on the 9th of Av 5767 (24.7.07); The quote is from paragraphs 12-13 of the judgment):
"The effectiveness of the rule of law is examined, among other things, by the government's ability to enforce judicial decisions and orders. In the absence of enforcement of judicial orders, social anarchy prevails, and the status of the norms of behavior and the judicial decisions that are intended to implement them is impaired. Failure to comply with court orders constitutes a violation of the process of doing justice, which harms the democratic foundations on which society is built, and in order to deal with the possibility of such a violation, judicial power is given to act by various means designed to force a contempt person to comply with a judicial order (Morris v. Crown Office (1970) 2QB 114, 122). The importance of the procedure to prevent contempt of court is not limited to the parties to the litigation. It is primarily intended to realize a public interest that strives to ensure the rule of law through the execution of judgments. Its importance is essential for imposing social awareness of the duty to respect the law and the orders of the law enforcement systems and to protect the status of the judiciary. From a broad perspective, the obligation to enforce judicial orders is one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic regime (Criminal Appeal 126/62 Disenchik v. Attorney General, 17(1) PD 169, 179 (1963)).