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
D
draft Image
| Net HaMishpat logo
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.
"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
4
.
.
.
.
.
"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)
a
22 |
|
21.10.2024 נעדר |
יוסף |
פנייה למזכיר הראשי: בקשה לאישור החלטות, המצאה אלקטרונית נעדר |
מופיע בתיק הנייר, לא נרשם |
?????? מספר 22 עכשיו נעדר |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a
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
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.
