| Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court | |
| Civil Case 56708-12-22 Erez Aumann v. Octopus – Public Information for All (NPO) et al.
|
|
| Before | The Honorable Judge Moriah Cherka
|
|
|
Plaintiff |
Erez Aumann By Attorney Adi Ben Hur |
|
|
Against
|
||
| Defendants | 1. The octopus – public information for all (NPO)
2. Guy Sommer By Adv. Jonathan Klinger From the Silencing Claims Prevention Clinic 3. Courts Administration – Legal Department By Adv. Liran Ben Ami From the Jerusalem District Attorney’s Office (Civil) |
|
Judgment
Is it permissible to publish judgments and documents from cases that are being conducted in the courts, even though the publication violates privacy? This question will be dealt with in the following judgment.
Factual Background
- In the years 2009-2022, the plaintiff managed a number of financial claims in the labor courts against various employers and a number of appeals against decisions and medical committees of the National Insurance Institute.
- Defendant 1 (hereinafter: "the defendant"), which is an association, has managed a website known as "The Trial Worm" throughout the relevant years, which made it possible (inter alia) to obtain information about people who managed cases in the courts, whether as plaintiffs, defendants or as their lawyers. Defendant 2 is a board member of the association and one of its founders (hereinafter: "the defendant").
- The publication on the "Trial Worm" website was organized in such a way that a person's name was published at the top of the page, with a list of the numbers of the proceedings in which he was involved, and the names of the parties (or some of them). In some cases, the publication included a link, the click of which led the surfer to a judgment or decision given in the proceeding.
- The information published by the defendant was extracted by means of a dedicated software from the data on the "Net HaMishpat" website, which is managed by defendant 3 (hereinafter: "the Courts Administration"). In addition, the defendant also published judgments and documents sent to her by private individuals on the "Worm of Justice" website.
- There is no dispute that information about the proceedings conducted by the plaintiff was also published on the website managed by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, this publication violated his privacy, because it included medical information about him, as well as his ID number and signature sample. For this reason, the claim before me was filed.
The main arguments of the parties
- The plaintiff claims that the defendants' publications about him, and in particular the publication of his name, together with his ID number, such as his signature and details about his health condition, violated his privacy, and for this the plaintiff is demanding monetary compensation.
- The plaintiff's claim is based on the right to privacy enshrined in the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981 (hereinafter and for short: the "Protection of Privacy Law"). In this law, the violation of privacy is defined, inter alia, as the publication of information about a person:
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916 "The publication of a matter relating to the privacy of a person's personal life, including his sexual past, or the state of his health, or his conduct in the private domain." (Section 2(11) of the Law)