Further support for Naveh's version can be found in the testimony of Adv. Attias, who confirmed that it was the Ministry that purchased the devices (par. p. 123, para. 10). According to him: "If you are talking about the iron, the iron belongs to the ministry... These are the ministry's phones, and this has always been the case for at least twenty years. The ministry paid for the subscription and for the replacement of the cell phones and everything related to them" (par. p. 127, paras. 27-30). And also: "There is no programming that my phone is not in the same way that my phone was financed by the ministry" (par. p. 127, paras. 35-36).
- Naveh's testimony is consistent with Judge Alaa Masarwa's decision of October 10,2021 to return a seized item (Tel Aviv-Yafo) 5939-07-19 (hereinafter - The Decisionaccording to which: "According to the material before me, there is no dispute and there can be no dispute that the devices themselves were owned and used by respondent 1 (Naveh - A.S.) They have not yet been transferred to the custody of his wife" (P/48).
- On the other hand, Chani's testimony was general and was not anchored in any corroborating evidence.
Chani testified that the phones were "thrown in a drawer" in their home, "without a SIM, " and that the girls played with them "like toys" (par. p. 231, paras. 19-23). She even described them as "nothing and nothing, garbage in the drawer" (par. p. 232, para. 7). Chani also did not know whether the devices were protected by a password (par. p. 241, paras. 11-17). All of this should indicate that the devices were not in Hani's active use and were not important to her, but rather objects that were placed without their intended use.
Moreover, Hani confirmed in her testimony before me that the person who made use of the devices was Naveh (par. p. 240, para. 10). All of this shows that there is no substance to Chani's general claim that she is the owner of the broken telephones.
If so, I prefer Naveh's version, which was strengthened by external evidence, to Chani's general version. Therefore, I determine that the ownership of the devices belonged to Naveh or to the Ministry. Hani did not have ownership of the devices and was not authorized to transfer them to a third party.
- Even if I assume that The ownership of the physical devices ("the irons") is given to Chani and Naveh, and by virtue of the presumption of partnership, as they were married at the time and had maintained a joint household in the past for years, the essential legal question regarding the privacy of the content stored in these devices still remains.
And what is this supposed to say?