From the innocent to the beating. Indeed, in contrast Section 38A to the Ordinance - which expressly establishes an appeal procedure for decisions under Chapter Four of the Ordinance, which concerns Object seizure - Article 43 The Ordinance belongs to To the fifth chapter, and the Ordinance is silent with respect to the possibility of appealing a decision by virtue of it. The Magistrate's Court viewed this as a negative arrangement whereby there is no right of appeal. In my opinion, this conclusion may be correct with regard to the ordinary state of affairs, in which an order is requested under Article 43 to the order without the suspect's knowledge. On the other hand, with respect to third parties, I am of the opinion that it is a lacuna in the order. As I have already expressed my opinion in the past, when it comes to On the third side If he is asked to provide material in his possession, certainly where there are weighty interests on the other side, such as journalistic confidentiality, there is justification for recognizing that he can appeal such a decision (Miscellaneous Criminal Applications 467/21 Anonymous Association v. State of Israel, paragraph 3 of my judgment [Nevo] (14.3.2021); See also Section 10 of the Proposal Kindness, which is intended to regulate the possibility of "those to whom Directed invention order" to apply for cancellation of the order). Moreover, I do not believe that the rulings of this court in the matter Urich apply to our case. The President's Reference Animals Article 43 The Ordinance was made in the margins (see paragraph 87 of its judgment), and in any event, no explicit conclusion was drawn there as to the existence or absence of a right of appeal in relation to Article 43 to the order. More intensely, the matter Urich A business thanks to Suspect The appeal, and as stated, in our case, the situation is different. I am of the opinion that when it comes to a third party, who is forced to hand over materials in his possession, he should be able to obtain in real time decisions that directly concern him, and which have implications for a protected interest of significant value. To be precise, a distinction must be made between the right of a third party to whom the order is directed directly, and who is the focus of the seizure proceeding, and the right of incidental third parties to a proceeding that may sometimes be harmed as a result of the execution of one order or another, for example, a peripheral and indirect violation of their right to privacy (in this regard, see also Amit Privileges, at pp. 1091-1111). In cases of the latter type, it seems that the justification for granting the right of appeal may ostensibly be weaker, but since this is not required for our case, it may be left to be examined (see the case Urich, paragraph 84 of the President's judgment Animals). Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the District Court was correct in its determination that there is a right to appeal to Eisenheim against the decision of the Magistrate's Court.
- As we also clarified in the hearing, it is clear that the case at hand raises fundamental legal questions that go beyond the individual interest of the parties, in a way that justifies accepting the application and hearing the appeal on its merits (compare the motions Criminal Miscellaneous 5605/21 Shteiwi v. Israel Police, paragraph 7 and the references therein [Nevo] (9.9.2021)).
After reviewing the pleadings and after hearing the arguments of the parties orally in the hearing before us, I have reached the conclusion that the appeal should be accepted, all subject to the following details.