6.Net
HaMishpat – ICT system of the Israeli courts, with an informal
docket, in which ~25%
of the numbered items
are hidden from the
Litigant
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.
Welcome
Statement
and Biosketch, Joseph Zernik, PhD, LLB
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21777379
Image
| Net HaMishpat logo
1. Background
In
some jurisdictions, court files include a "Docket" or a
"Register of Actions" that lists the records entered in the
court file during litigation. In some jurisdictions, such a Docket or
a Register of Actions is established by law as the official record of
litigation. That is to say, the litigation was based on the
records listed in the docket or register.
Net
HaMishpat is usual in several ways relative to the processing of
papers filed in court, listing them in a manner suitable for
presentation to the judge and litigants. Here, the focus is on one
aspect alone: the apparent filing and docketing of papers that are
hidden from the litigant(s) but accessible to the judge in the trial
court and the judges of the court of appeals.
That
is to say: The judge in the trial court rules at least in part, based
on papers that are docketed, but which the litigant has never seen.
Likewise, judges of the court of appeals rule on the appeal, at
least in part, based on
papers docketed in the trial
court file that the litigant
cannot see.
2. "Requests
and Instructions" and "Post-judgment Requests"
in Estate File 11650-06-24 in the Haifa Family Court
The
figures below are from Estate File
11650-06-24 in the Haifa Family Court. The figures
show the numbered actions listed in "Requests and Instructions"
and "Post-judgment Requests" as of May 23, 2026. Combined,
around 25% of the numbered items in the list are hidden from this
litigant.
Missing: 86,
87, 92.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: 79.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: 71,
72.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: 60,
61.
.
Missing: 57.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: 39,
40, 41, 42.
.
Missing: 35.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: 29.
.
Missing: 22,
23.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: 12,
17.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: none.
.
Missing: 3,
4, 5, 6.
3. Requests for explanation of the missing numbered items, and
Decisions by Judge Hila Gurevitz with help from Deputy Clerk Keren
Peles
a) Request #14, dated August 6, 2024, and Decision #14, dated
October 30, 2024
.
.
.
.
.
"התיק
פתוח בפניו לצפייה מרחוק"
"לא
קיימים כתבים/רישומים
שמיועדים לבעלי דין שאינם ניתנים לצפייה.
ככל
שהמבקש מלין על עניין מנהלי – עליו לפנות
לגורמים האחראים במזכירות.
מעבר
לכך הבקשה נדחית".
When
requests were filed seeking explanations, Judge Hila Gurevitz issued
decisions stating that the computer jumped numbers from time to
time... She also called upon Deputy Clerk Keren Peles to support that
explanation. Eventually, she issued a decision: You see what you are
supposed to see.
The
visibility of the numbered items on the Register is not that stable
either. Some records may disappear with no notice, request, or
decision (separately discussed in items #7,8 in this Archive).
Judge
Hila Gurevitz worked ceaselessly to prevent my access to the Office
of the Clerk and to the court file (separately discussed in item # in
this Archive).
To
some degree, the case turned into a poker game: Attorney Yoav Salomon
who impersonates Estate Administrator, also impersonates Counsel of
Plaintiff. He never filed a valid Power of Attorney Certificate on
the day he filed the initial pleading. Judge Hila Gurevitz responded
to my requests for summary dismissal by issuing threats against me.
Attorney Yoav Salomon has not filed a Power of Attorny certificate to
this day to the best of my knowledge. However, Judge Hila Gurevitz
issued an order that “there is an updated representation record on
file”. Where on file I cannot see. Therefore, I filed a notice of
inpse4ction with the clerk fo he court, that was struck by the judge
with a penalty of NIS ….
At
this point in time, it is clear that there is a folder of Power of
Attorney certificates in this file, but it is hidden from me. Request
to gain access to the folder was struck.
b)
22
נעדר
|
|
21.10.2024
נעדר
|
יוסף
|
פנייה
למזכיר הראשי:
בקשה
לאישור החלטות,
המצאה
אלקטרונית נעדר
|
מופיע
בתיק הנייר,
לא
נרשם
|
??????
מספר
22
עכשיו
נעדר
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
1/3
|
1.11.2024
|
יוסף
|
פנייה
לקרן פלס -
הסבר
למספרים נעדרים ברשימת "בקשות
והוראות"
ו"בקשות
לאחר סגירה"
27#
"היסטוריה
רישומית של המספרים הנעדרים"
|
"נמחק"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
2
|
3.11.2024
|
גורביץ
|
בקשה
28# עם
העתק החלטה על 28#
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
3
|
|
|
החלטה
למחוק 27#
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
1
|
2.11.2024
|
יוסף
|
פנייה
לקרן פלס לרישום בבקשות לאחר סגירה שתי
בקשות לאישור והמצאה:
1. מסמכי
9.10
מאושרים
ע"י
המזכיר הראשי,
2. תמליל
עשוי כדין.
|
"נמחק"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
2
|
3.11.2024
|
גורביץ
|
ההחלטה
הארוכה,
שהועתקה
מספר פעמים,
ומורה
על הגבלת גישתו של יוסף להגשת מסמכים
ובקשות לבית המשפט.
|
"נמחק"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
מספר
חסר
|
חסר
|
מספר
חסר
הודעת
עיון בהיסטוריה הרישומית של 29#
נדחתה
מרישום בתואנה של אי תשלום אגרה
|
מספר
חסר
|
A
Competent Court of Record
A
“competent court” is a term which is deeply
ingrained in Anglo-American law. At times the full term is used: “a
competent court of record”. The term also appears in international
law, e.g. in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(1966), as the type of court that the member nations accept as their
duty to provide to their residents. It is a judicial body that
possesses proper subject-matter, territorial and personal
jurisdiction over a given cause, whose acts and judicial
proceedings are enrolled in an official, permanent record intended
to serve as perpetual memory and conclusive evidence of its
judgments.
In
other words: The proper processing and maintenance of court records
is a quintessential characteristic of a competent court of record. In
English speaking nations, the detailed instructions regarding
processing and maintenance of court records are part of the Rules of
Courts.
Even
at this level, the notion of proper processing, entering in dockets,
and maintenance of court records, an aberrant legal philosophy has
developed in Israel over the past quarter century, in conjunction
with Net HaMishpat. It is separately discussed in item #35 in
relationship to letters received from Adv. Barak Leiser, General
Counsel of the Administration of Courts.
Conflict
with International Law
The
described situation—where a judge rules based on docketed papers
that the litigant cannot see—is highly unusual and fundamentally
contradicts established principles of international law. It directly
violates the right to a fair trial, which is considered a cornerstone
of the rule of law in democratic societies.
The scenario appears to be a clear violation of the right to a
"fair and public hearing" as enshrined in several
international legal instruments. Two key documents are particularly
relevant:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR): Article 14(1) guarantees the right to a
fair trial . Article 14(3)(b) further specifies the right for the
accused "to have adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of his defence" . "Facilities" has been
interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee to include access to
all relevant documents and evidence in the case file.
European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR): The Court has consistently ruled that the
right to a fair trial requires "equality of arms" between
the parties and an adversarial procedure, where both sides have the
opportunity to see and contest the evidence presented against them .
A court's decision to base a ruling on documents a party has not
seen would fundamentally undermine this principle.
"Net
HaMishpat" System
The
Israeli courts' CMS (case management system) Net HaMishpat, which was
developed "with no representation of the public interest"
[item #1 in this Archive, State Ombudsman Report 60b, 2010], has no
formal Docket or Register of Actions. The system, in general, is
short on formal definitions or established rules for its management
and maintenance.
The information in the search results is specific to the Israeli
court system and its "Net HaMishpat" (נת
המשפט) digital filing system .
While the results do not describe a situation where documents are
secret from the litigant and relied upon by the judge, they
establish a general framework of transparency.
General Access: The system allows parties to
a case, their lawyers, experts, and witnesses to submit, receive,
and read documents related to their cases .
Third-Party Requests: A person who is not a
party to a case may request access to a court file, but this
requires a judicial decision granting permission .
This general framework of presumed access makes
the specific practice described—of "hidden" docketed
papers—seem even more exceptional.
However, that is not the case:
Some papers are hidden in almost every court file, as judged by
skipping docket numbers. As a rule, parties must not ever see the
Office of the Clerk display of the court file – since it may appear
very different.
The
hidden papers are noticeable as serial numbers, which are missing in
the docket. Tjere are missing numbers in almost any court file, but
the percentage of missing numbers varies among files.
Critical
Legal Principle Violated
The described practice contradicts the "equality of
arms" principle, which is essential for a fair trial.
This principle dictates that all parties must be given a reasonable
opportunity to present their case under conditions that do not place
them at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis their opponent. This
includes having access to the evidence on which the court will rule.
If a judge has access to papers that a litigant cannot see, the
litigant is unable to contest that evidence, rendering the process
fundamentally unfair and adversarial in name only .
In conclusion, the described scenario is not just unusual; it
appears to be a direct contravention of fundamental international
human rights law, specifically the right to a fair trial.
Paragraph
55 to the November 6, 2007, Judgment in Chruściński
v. Poland, in
The European Court of Human Rights:
“55.
The proceedings must be adversarial and must always ensure “equality
of arms” between the parties. More specifically, the Court
reiterates that a certain degree of access to the case-file, if only
to such an extent as to afford the detainee an opportunity of
effectively challenging evidence on which his detention was based,
may in certain instances be envisaged in proceedings concerning
review of the lawfulness of detention on remand (see Lamy v.
Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151,
pp. 16-17, § 29). These requirements are derived from the right to
an adversarial trial as laid down in Article 6 of the Convention”.
What
appears strange is that no one seems to see anything unusual about it
in Israel.
Furthermore,
since I filed requests to inspect the hidden papers, Judge Hila
Gurevitz resorted to her practice of providing untrue factual
statements in her court decisions.
The
unusual circumstances surrounding the system is reflected by the fact
that 16 years since it was implemented in the courts, there is no
User’s Manual. In a project the cost of which has surpassed by now
NIS 1 billion (in current values), this cannot be the outcome of
oversight or negligence. It was probably decided early on that no
User’s Manual would be written, since that would have required
defining various functions, authorities and permissions.
There
are several lists of records in a typical Net-HaMishpat court file,
e.g., "Paper File," "Incoming Records," "Requests
and Instructions," "Post-judgment Requests,"
"Pleadings," "Judgments," etc.
"Paper
File" – typically lists all the papers that were filed in
the case in chronological order, together with the certificates of
filing. However, the papers are not numbered. Moreover, the
certificates of filing list the number of the Action the paper was
filed under. However, that designation is often incorrect. Therefore,
the "Paper File" is not typically used in routine review of
the case.
"Requests
and Instructions" and "Post-judgment Requests"
are typically treated as an informal Docket or Register of Actions.
These two lists include consecutively numbered items (Actions), in
chronological order. Each numbered item typically represents a motion
and all related responses, replies, and decisions. However, there are
no published rules regarding the treatment of these two lists: There
may be papers, including motions that were duly filed, but would
never make it to the list. They are
likely to be designated for overlooking by the judge. Some motions
are listed, numbered, but then disappear (see separate items in this
archive - #7 and #8.
A
Docket or Register of Actions typically wouldn't list drafts of
judicial records, only the signed, valid records.
As separately described, the
Administration of Courts claims that Net
HaMishpat judicial records
are electronic records that
are
signed using
electronic signatures, in compliance with the Electronic Signature
Law, 2001. However,
the electronic signatures on judicial records in Net HaMishpat are of
an unusual type. They are not present on each judicial record in the
docket, they are present only if one chooses to download a record
with an electronic signature, and then too, it is not an electronic
signature that can be attributed to a specific judge. These unusual
characteristics of the electronic signatures in Net HaMishpat are
documented and discussed in this archive in items #2 (Ombudsman
of the Judiciary Decision 88/12/Tel Aviv District, in RE: Judge Varda
Alshech (May
31, 2012)),
#3 (Electronic
Signatures in Net HaMishpat),
and #34 (A
Family Court Judge in the Haifa District repudiates her order).
invisible,
undetectable electronic signatures that only judges can detect. At
the same time, the electronic
signatures presented in Net HaMishpat records are patently invalid
(see a separate Appendix). The end result was that records produced
by Judge Varda Alshech, which were posted in the docket, and served
on litigants, were later declared as invalid "Drafts" for
failing to be signed by the judge.
Another
peculiar characteristics of the informal docket in Net HaMishpat is
that the Action serial numbers are not running consecutively.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22125236
