An article published in "Globes" and a link to the "News1" site under the heading "Manirev does not give up to Eyal Arad and Lior Horev: demands that the Supreme Court increase the compensation for the campaign against him" regarding the appeal filed by our office regarding the removal of journalistic immunity during an investigation in court and the implications of waiving this privilege .
[Hebrew Only]
Manirav demands that the Supreme Court increase the compensation for Arad and Horev's campaign
CPA Ofer Manirav demanded NIS 2.5 million from the parties who ran the negative election campaign of the late CPA Guzman, in a lawsuit against him for the presidency of the CPA Chamber in 2009, claiming that they had defamed him ■ The district court ruled in his favor compensation of NIS 80,000
Ella Levi-Weinrib 9/4/14
The question of what are the permissible and forbidden limits in a "negative election campaign", and how much compensation should be awarded against those who break the rules, comes to the Supreme Court. Last week, CPA Ofer Manirav appealed the ruling of the Central District Court, which ruled that " Arad Communications ", the strategic advisor Lior Horev (who was previously a partner in the company with Eyal and Yuval Arad) and the public relations man, Ben Zion Citrin, will pay him NIS 80,000 in compensation, following the negative campaign they conducted against him for the late CPA Yigal Guzman. This, as part of the contest for the presidency of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in September 2009, between Manirav and Guzman.
Manirav claims in the appeal, through Adv. Sabir Rabin, that the amount of compensation awarded to him "is clearly unreasonable in view of the severity of the defamations and the manner in which they were carried out anonymously and intentionally, with the clear and malicious intent to harm his dignity, status and especially his hand."
"Shared responsibility"
Manirav filed a lawsuit in November 2010, amounting to NIS 2.5 million (an amount reduced from NIS 5 million, on the advice of a court), against Arad Communications, owned by Yuval and Eyal Arad, and Lior Horev, the accounting firm BDO Ziv-Haft and the communications consultant, Citrin. , Alleging defamation during the election campaign for the presidency of the CPA.
The lawsuit alleges that during Guzman's campaign, emails were sent to members of the bureau defaming Manirav from an unidentified email address, and that the email senders asked to remain anonymous and enlisted the help of an email distribution company, which owns a server in the US. During the early discussions in the lawsuit, it was revealed that Arad Communications was the one that ordered the sending of the emails.
District Judge Ofer Grosskopf accepted Manirev's claim in part (see box), but ruled that his requests regarding the amount of compensation he deserved could not be granted. Among other things, the judge noted that "the negative campaign against Manirav was part of a turbulent election campaign, for which Manirav bears no less responsibility than the late Guzman."
In addition, the judge dismissed, in full, Manirav's lawsuit against the BDO accounting firm and against Kobi Navon (who was one of the activists in the Guzman headquarters, and according to Manirav was behind the Guzman staff's strategic decision to take a negative campaign against him), A thousand shekels for each of them. Thus, in practice, the amount of compensation awarded in favor of Manirv was offset against the expenses he was charged.
A deterrent tool
An accountant from Nirav now appeals to the Supreme Court, arguing that "his appeal revolves around a question of proper legal policy in determining general compensation, without proof of special damage, in the defamation lawsuit, in which the court ruled that the wrongdoers had a clear intention to harm and harm the victim: "To rule on minimal, symbolic damage that will not deter wrongdoers from slashing the tongues of the tongue and the fruit of their pen at the victim, or that significant compensation must be awarded that will not only reflect his real general damage and mental anguish, but will also serve as a deterrent against the wrongdoers." According to Manirav, this important question is especially sharpened when the injustices are done in election campaigns, when one or both competitors deliberately choose to run a negative election campaign, the "time for disaster" and which requires caution from those who take it.
According to Manirav, "The defendants chose to conduct a negative election campaign against him, while anonymously and deliberately throwing at him suspicions of alleged criminal acts in the field of tax, tax evasion, double entries in books and the like, while dramatizing advertising and distributing it directly to almost every public." The accountants in Israel (including those who work in the tax authorities and some of them serve as tax officials), and then the e-mail is published in the Calcalist newspaper, and all the while he is known and known as his expert in the field of taxes, and when he represents the CPA in the field of taxes. At the CPA's Office. The conclusion, according to Manirav, is that the purpose of the offensive email was not only to sabotage his election as president of the bureau, but also to fatally injure his headquarters and completely undermine all his many years of activity in the tax field.
Despite this, it was argued, the court ruled in his favor only NIS 50,000 in compensation for the offensive email and only NIS 30,000 in respect of the article in "Calcalist" - compensation, which, according to Manirav, "has the potential to encourage wrongdoers in general and election campaigns in particular." "To the wrongdoer is certainly higher than the minimalist amount that will be awarded to their debt, insofar as the ruling constitutes a proper criterion for this."
Citrin also recently filed an appeal to the Supreme Court over the very imposition of liability on him in the affair. According to him, through Adv. Doron Afik, the part of the judgment concerning him actually states that the defendant's non-waiver of journalist-source confidentiality and bringing the journalist as strong creative evidence against the defendant makes the burden of proof; and that a person's communications consultant is strong because he The source of all the information passed on to journalists. According to him, "these legal rulings, if not repealed, in practice mean the abolition of journalistic confidentiality and perhaps even all confidentiality in Israeli law."
"It is worth acknowledging the protection of the advertiser, even when it turns out in retrospect that the information was incorrect"
The district court ruling revolved around the tumultuous election campaign and the saturation of emotions and mutual slander for the presidency of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in 2009, in which Judge Ofer Grosskopf first outlined the limits of media consultants' responsibility for negative content for others.
The judge first noted that the main person responsible for the defamatory publication of Manirav is the late CPA Guzman himself, as he was the one who approved and ordered the publication of all the emails as part of the negative campaign. However, it was noted, Manirav chose not to claim the estate of the late Guzman, "and he did well to refrain from adding this matter to the tensions between him and the family of the deceased," the judge wrote.
As for the proper rule regarding the responsibility of strategic advisers and communications consultants for what is said in the context of the Ng election campaign