Gill Nadel, Adv.
The Magistrate's Court of Tel Aviv recently gave a fundamental ruling that allows the public to examine a customs case that is being conducted with open doors.
In that case, the author of this article (Adv. Gill Nadel, the petitioner) requested to examine the material of documents that were found in a court file regarding an importer's proceedings against the Customs Authority. The need to examine the court file stemmed from the fact that the issue discussed in those files was relevant to another case in the petitioner's care.
The Customs Authority, as well as the importer, opposed the petitioner's request, the main justification being the privilege given to the importer in all of his dealings with the Customs Authority.
The court accepted this author's petition and allowed the examination of the file.
As a rule, the court ruled, that the guiding principle in our case is the principle of the publicity of court proceedings, a constitutional principle.
The court ruled that in light of the fact that the case was conducted with open doors, and the decision was published in a number of legal sites, and there was no absolutely no writ forbidding publication- examination of the file should be permitted.
While the right of examination can be limited for reasons, for example, that would have originally caused the action to have been conducted to with closed doors but this was not done because the justification was created at a later stage, the court found that this entire proceeding was conducted with open doors and the main claims of the sides and the relevant facts were already published in the decision, which was accessible to anyone who wanted it, and no new fact was created or discover to justify “closing the doors” or forbidding publication specifically now.
The court noted that the aforesaid conclusion would be binding even if the petitioner had no special interest in examining the file. All the more so when it is a case of an attorney's wish to study one case in order to conduct a case under his care, which has already been recognized as a reason that would in and of itself justify granting the petition for examination.
Request in 42687/03 Gill Nadel, Adv v. Poldian Yaakov and the Customs and VAT Authority (petitioner- for himself; Poldian- via Adv. Dorot, Customs Authority- via Tal Ben Moshe, representative of Attorney General Office)
We will also note in this context the decision of the District Court of Jerusalem (1632/06) in which the court obliged the Customs Authority to give an importer information regarding the classification of imported items, including items imported by competing importers, while rejecting the claim of privilege made by the Customs Authority. The importer was represented by the author, and the request for appeal filed by the Customs Authority is still pending.
עדכוני מכס ורגולציה
