"It can be understood from this that the barrier of judicial supervision applies only to the decisions of an internal disciplinary court at the highest level among several levels, and it can be further understood from this that we are dealing with the blocking of appellate supervision and not the blocking of judicial supervision of another type. "
- The court in the Turtan case also clarifies the definition of intervention and supervision of the decisions of the association and the internal judicial institutions. Thus, when it comes to a decision in which there is a specific expertise of the internal institution, the intervention will be limited and will be examined with a limited test of deviation from authority and an examination of a violation of the rules of natural justice, and thus, when the decision does not embody the specific expertise of the internal institution, the intervention will be in the traditional grounds of intervention of administrative law (and as noted, not appeals), and I will elaborate below on the grounds for intervention in the substantive chapter of the framework of the hearing.
- We have therefore learned that in light of the provisions of section 11 of the Sports Law, it is not possible to file an appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Association, but it is possible to approach the court on grounds of intervention of deviation from authority and violation of the rules of natural justice.
This raises the question, what is the proper procedural way to approach the court on this issue, and what are the procedures for hearing such a claim or petition.
- In the Turtan case above, a reference was made to the Civil Court in a proceeding of "incentive of opening" that existed within the framework of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5744-1984, when in the framework of this proceedings of the injunction the plaintiffs petitioned in the Turtan case for remedies against the decisions of the internal institutions of the relevant institutions. This proceeding of injunction was canceled in the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018 (hereinafter and for convenience: the "New Rules of Procedure").
- In the framework of the judgment in the Turtan case above, no discussion was held on the procedural aspect of the matter, nor was the proper procedural way in which the decisions and rulings of the Association's internal institutions should be attacked, nor was the procedures for attacking these decisions discussed.
The Israeli legislature and the subordinate legislature also did not consider the procedural framework for attacking the decisions of the Association's internal institutions, for example, this issue is not included in the framework of the Administrative Courts Law, 5760-2000.
- Hence, a practice has developed that such proceedings are filed through a civil proceeding of an opening motion to the District Court, and after the repeal of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5744-1984, by way of a regular civil action.
See, for example, Opening Stimulus (Tel Aviv-Yafo) 684-03 Shlomo Rentzler v. Israel Football Association [published in the Nevo database] (May 30, 2003):