- Naveh did not present real evidence in these contexts. In this state of affairs, I find it difficult to accept the basis that Naveh laid for the purpose of determining the extent of the pecuniary damage caused as a result of the tortious act. I was not impressed that Objective difficulty He prevented Neve from presenting in court accurate accounting references or income tax reports, etc., in order to prove the decline in his personal income. This case is not similar to a case in which the injured party failed to establish the damage component due to circumstances that are not dependent on him (see, for example, circumstances that justify awarding monetary compensation by way of estimate): Civil Appeal 8588/06 Deljo v. Personnel Development Ltd., paragraph 27 (November 11,2010); Civil Appeal 1203/13 Tomshover v. Art Ofik Ltd., paragraph 3 (May 6,2015)).
Therefore, I do not see fit to award compensation for pecuniary damage by way of estimation, and Naveh's claim for pecuniary damage caused as a result of the violation of his privacy or as a result of a breach of statutory duty should be rejected.
Non-pecuniary damage
- According to Naveh, the defendants deliberately acted to take the devices, hack them, dig into his private and personal information, and expose personal conversations and correspondence. These acts severely violated his privacy and privacy, as well as caused him very heavy damages, expressed in pain and suffering, mental anguish and severe violation of the right to privacy. In these circumstances, he petitioned for compensation in the amount of ILS 4 million for non-pecuniary damage. Alternatively, Naveh petitioned to order, by way of estimate, a substantial amount of compensation that would reflect the severity of the events described above and their severe harm to Naveh.
- The right to privacy is a basic right that protects, inter alia, the individual's autonomy, his personal space, and his ability to determine who will be exposed to the information relating to him and under what circumstances. Therefore, the very violation of privacy may cause the victim non-pecuniary damage, which is expressed, inter alia, in feelings of emotional distress, humiliation, violation of dignity, discomfort, loss of control over personal information, and impairment of the sense of security and autonomy.
Naveh testified before me about the harm caused to him as a result of the disclosure of the information from the devices. Naveh described from his heart the way the publication affected him, and his testimony reflected the intensity of the harm as far as he was concerned. Thus, he said: "The injury was crazy, it's like an atomic bomb exploding on you, the sky falls on you and you don't understand what's happening around you, a crazy dance of demons, all the media joined in the celebration, it was something unprecedented..." And also: "I was presented as the last of the criminals. You suddenly become radioactive and they just get away from you and it's on all levels" (par. p. 81, paras. 7-9,14-15). I was impressed by Naveh's testimony, which was given out of an honest sense of vulnerability due to the violation of his privacy at the most serious level. His testimony is consistent with the nature of the violation of his privacy, the main purpose of which was the intrusion into the personal content that was stored on the phones and the handling of them in order to prepare them for broadcast as part of the investigation conducted by Shteif. I deem it appropriate to give Naveh's testimony high weight in this matter of the description of the non-pecuniary damage.
- When it is proven that damage has been caused, but its non-pecuniary nature makes it difficult to quantify it accurately, the amount of compensation can be determined by way of an estimate (Civil Appeal 243/83 Jerusalem Municipality v. GordonIsrSC 39(1) 113,140-142 (1985); Civil Appeal 1338/97 Tnuva Cooperative Center for the Marketing of Agricultural Produce in Israel Ltd. v. RabiIsrSC 57(4) 673,683-685 (2003); Civil Appeal 7426/14 Anonymous v. Daniel, paragraph 81 (Nevo, March 14,2016)).
The courts have used various criteria to determine the amount of compensation for infringement of the right to privacy: