In my opinion, the intensity of the violation of the principle of the publicity of the hearing in this case, if the publication of the respondent's name and details is prohibited, is not one of the most serious. The starting point for examining the intensity of the violation of the principle in our case is that the restriction that is required relates only to the name of the party whose medical details are exposed, and not to the existence of the entire proceeding and all the other data presented within it. This restriction minimises, on the face of it, the intensity of the violation of the principle, since it leaves the legal proceeding itself, with all its details, except for the name of the litigant, for the examination of the public, despite the imposition of confidentiality on the name of the litigant. Indeed, it should not be ignored that the publication of the names of the parties can also be important in light of the principle of the publicity of the hearing. Thus, if there is a real public interest in the publication of the identity of the parties, and so even if there is no public interest as aforesaid, since there is still the institutional consideration regarding the appearance of justice and equality before the law, which is realized by publishing the identity of the parties...
I am aware that my position may lead to the fact that, prima facie, as a rule, there will be room to prohibit the publication of the names of plaintiffs in claims for compensation for bodily injuries of all kinds, if this is requested by the litigant. I do not believe that this result is fundamentally inappropriate, especially since in a concrete case the court may reach a different conclusion, when the interest in the publicity of the hearing will prevail over the right to privacy in light of the special circumstances of the case. Due to the recognition of the right to privacy in all matters relating to a person's medical condition, it is not appropriate to consider why the role of someone who is forced to turn to the courts and disclose his medical condition there for the purpose of litigation should be reduced, as opposed to someone who does not need the courts, who also suffers from some medical problem, even if it has an impact on his functioning and even if he plays a role that has a clear impact on others (public vehicle driver, Doctor, teacher, judge, etc.)."