This right is at the core of the democratic character of the State of Israel:
"This court noted in its ruling that the right to privacy is 'one of the most important human rights'... and that it is "one of the freedoms that shape the character of the regime in Israel as a democratic regime"... .")Additional Criminal Hearing 1062/21 Yonatan Urich v. State of Israel (January 11, 2022))
See also High Court of Justice 6732/20 Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Knesset (March 1, 2021):
"The right to privacy is a basic right that constitutes an expression of human dignity; And it is derived from a person's autonomy over his life and his ability to realize himself... Just as a person is entitled to write his life story, so he has the right to dictate which aspects of his life will be exposed and which will be reserved with him. In this sense, the right to privacy "draws the line between the individual and the collective, between the 'I' and society. It depicts a complex in which the individual is left to his own devices, to develop his 'self,' without the involvement of others"... The right to privacy and privacy of the individual was granted constitutional status in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (Section 7 of the Basic Law); Even before that, it was explicitly enshrined in the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981. It should be emphasized that the right to privacy is not merely an expression of human dignity, and it is also accepted to be seen as one of the rights that shape the character of the regime in Israel...; Its existence is necessary for the existence of a proper democratic regime, for ensuring relations of trust between people, and for the sake of proper community life...."
- The principle of the publicity of the hearing is also set out in the Basic Law. Thus, in section 3 of the Basic Law: The Judiciary:
"A court shall hear in public, unless otherwise provided by law or if the court has ordered otherwise by law."
- In addition, and as stated above, this principle is enshrined in section 68 of the Courts Law. However, at the same time as establishing the principle, the Courts Law establishes a list of exceptions to the aforementioned rule. Thus, Section 68(b) of the Law establishes a list of cases in which the court may hear a certain matter behind closed doors, "if it deems it necessary". It should be emphasized that the violation of privacy in itself does not appear on the list as a reason for holding a hearing behind closed doors, because if you say so, any discussion (almost) will always justify a publication ban, and thus it will be devoid of the content of the rule that determines the publicity of the hearing. After all, in the course of court hearings, many details are revealed about the parties to the proceeding and their behavior in the individual domain, in the relationships between them.
- Therefore, an infringement of privacy will justify setting a closed-door hearing only in special cases, for example, if it is a matter of "protecting the case of a minor or helpless person as defined in section 368A of the Penal Law, 5737-1977, as well as a person with an intellectual disability or a person with a mental disability, as defined in the Investigation and Testimony Procedures Law (Adaptation for Persons with Intellectual or Mental Disabilities), 5766-2005" (Collective Dispute B(4)). Protection of the interest of a complainant or defendant in various offenses (collective dispute B(5), (9) and (11) - (13)), protection of witnesses (collective dispute B(7) and (10) and protection of trade secret (collective dispute B(8)). Additional exceptions were determined in a collective dispute (e) regarding the hearings in the Family Court and the Juvenile Court. Despite the length of the list of exceptions to the rule, as noted, the rule is that of the publicity of the hearing.
- The importance and purposes of the principle of publicity of the hearing were discussed by the Supreme Court in Other Municipality Applications 4244/12 Haaretz Newspaper Publication in Tax Appeal v. Brigadier General Ephraim Bracha (December 31, 2012):
"The principle of the publicity of the hearing has been granted supra-constitutional status in our legal system and has been determined to constitute a fundamental component of our democratic regime, which contributes to the proper conduct of the legal process, to the fortification of public confidence in the courts, and to the realization of freedom of expression..."
- The Supreme Court pointed to a number of reasons for which the public hearing was granted constitutional status:
"The principle of the publicity of the hearing - which is enshrined in section 3 of the Basic Law: The Judiciary and in section 68 of the Courts Law - is 'one of the main constitutional principles that underpin our legal system'... Fundamentally, the principle is based on three interrelated rationales. First, the recognition of the importance of the public's right to know, a right that contributes to shaping the opinions and views of the individual in a democratic society; second, the guarantee of the quality of the decision given at the end of the proceeding, mainly due to the fact that the proceeding is exposed to the public; The third is to strengthen the public's trust in the judicial system through the transparency of the justice process." (Civil Appeal Authority 482/13 Eliyahu Insurance Company in Tax Appeal v. Anonymous (April 23, 2013), hereinafter: "The Anonymous Case")
- The court explicitly referred to the importance of publishing the identity of the parties to the proceeding as part of the publicity of the hearing:
"It is worth mentioning that the principle of the publicity of the hearing also means the disclosure and disclosure of the names of the litigating parties. The disclosure of names adds a significant tool to the toolbox available to the public for the purpose of supervision and control of judicial proceedings. In this way, the public can understand the relations between the parties and the judge sitting in the proceeding or the attorneys representing them, and even raise - as necessary - claims regarding conflicts of interest between them...