However, this is not a theoretical issue, but rather an issue that needs to be examined concretely.
The Protection of Privacy Law establishes in section 1 the prohibition of infringement of privacy in the following terms: "A person shall not violate the privacy of another without his consent." In other words, as detailed above, the prohibition is on invasion of privacy without consent. In this context, clarification is required. In the absence of a suitable class plaintiff, and since an appropriate evidentiary basis has not been laid at the level required for the purpose of certifying a class action, in fact I do not have before me a class member who claims that his privacy was violated without his consent.
Conclusion
- In view of all of the above, and in particular the lack of evidence as detailed above, I am not persuaded that there is a reasonable possibility that the material questions will be decided in favor of the group in the framework of this action.
This is beyond the fact that, as detailed, I do not believe that this request for approval falls within the scope of Item 1 of the Second Addendum.
Therefore, there is no reason to grant the request to replace an applicant.
- In light of all the details, the request for approval is denied.
As to the expenses, I have given my attention to the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that this is a request for certification, to which the Respondent submitted a reply to which two expert opinions were attached, one of which was even investigated, and that evidentiary hearings were held and summaries were submitted. On the other hand, this is a motion for approval that deals with issues that are important to avoid creating a "chilling effect" from filing motions to certify class actions in their case, and after considering the matter, I charge the Applicant for the Respondent's expenses in the total sum of ILS 40,000 to be paid within 60 days from today.
The Secretariat will provide the judgment to the parties.