The defendant's summaries also do not attempt to explain the violation of the plaintiff's privacy or to rely on the defense of good faith under section 18(2) of the Protection of Privacy Law.
In the absence of even an attempt to make a defense claim, there is no point in even addressing the possibility of the existence of one that will be available to the defendant after it is found that he has committed defamation and violated the plaintiff's privacy.
- Remedies
- Although the sum of the claim was set at ILS 2,320,000 and even though the plaintiff petitions in his summaries to rule on the full amount of the claim, an examination of the plaintiff's summaries shows claims for an amount that falls below the amount of the claim.
The plaintiff claims damage caused to him, a pocket disadvantage, in the sum of ILS 1,020,000, which includes a loss of ILS 770,000 and expenses for deleting defamatory publications in the sum of ILS 250,000 (paragraphs 37-39 of the plaintiff's summaries).
Subsequently, the plaintiff petitions for compensation without proof of damage without specifying the amount (paragraph 49 of the plaintiff's summaries).
- The plaintiff's claims for direct damage caused to him in connection with the publications are based on two heads - a loss in the sum of ILS 770,000 and expenses in the sum of ILS 250,000.
The plaintiff's claim for a loss in the sum of ILS 770,000 is based on an agreement that the plaintiff was supposed to enter into in real estate business and which was not executed. According to the plaintiff, the company with which he was supposed to enter into an agreement to execute the transaction decided to cancel the engagement due to the publications about the plaintiff, and thus he suffered a loss of sums estimated at ILS 770,000 (paragraph 44 of the plaintiff's affidavit).
An examination of the evidence presented by the plaintiff (including the correspondence - Appendix 15 to the plaintiff's affidavit) shows that this claim remained laconic and vague. No details were presented about the transaction that was made, no opinion or other document was presented explaining how that transaction was supposed to yield the plaintiff a profit in any amount, and no information was presented linking the publications that are the subject of the lawsuit to the non-existence of the transaction. The plaintiff wishes to base this claim on the testimony of Nikolai Konov (a lawyer from Bulgaria), but it is sufficient to examine his affidavit to see that it contains nothing but speculation and rumors. The same witness claims that the deal was canceled in 2022, but the connection to the defendant's publications is based on rumors and nothing more. The amount that the plaintiff cited as a loss caused to him remains without any basis and the claim of this damage is rejected.