The Result
- Result-The law is, as also the-The District Court, which the Appellant must deliver to the-the documents listed in the first and second orders. If it turns out, even though it has not been claimed so in the past, that the appellant was unable to-Even with all the efforts he makes to produce any document, he will be allowed to turn to a home-The court that issued the order with an appropriate request and to persuade him to do so and to request that he be relieved of the obligation to produce that document. Inquiry into such a request shall be made on-Home Hands-The trial is in accordance with the lines outlined above.
- The affair began on July 16, 2003, in which the appellant was served with the first order. Since then, more than eight months have passed, and the documents that the appellant had to produce, as explained in the judgment-This law has not yet been provided. The length of the proceedings can be explained, albeit only partially, by the fact that the case raised questions that have not yet been discussed in the case law of the House-This trial. It seems that now the time has come to conclude the proceedings and to comply with the two orders that are the subject of the hearing. The appellant must comply with them as soon as possible. The appeal is dismissed subject to the provisions of paragraph 21 above and subject to all of the above on the subject of house supervision-The judgment on the execution of the orders.
Judge A. Matza
I agree.
Judge M. Cheshin
I agree.
Judge D. Beinisch
I agree.
Judge A. E. Levy I agree.
It was decided, as stated, in the judgment of the Vice-President (ret.) Justice Or.
Given today, 7 Nissan 5764 (29.3.2004).