“Not only is there no room to reject the new regulations, it is imperative that they begin in time to allow for a public outreach to the corona virus.” This is what Judge Dr. Yigal Marzel, director of the courts, claims in an exclusive interview with Ynet, just before the reality in which civil law in Israel is conducted is expected to change.
Judge Yigal Marzel
(Photo: Spokeswoman for the Courts Administration)
In order to conduct civil litigation, there are civil procedure regulations that guide how to conduct a hearing. These regulations are going to change from this coming January, after 37 years, which is causing the legal arena in Israel to stir.
The regulations create a fundamental change in the way the legal process is conducted in civil cases, transfer much more extensive powers to judges, limit lawyers, even in the number of pages they file in pleadings, and allow legal secretaries to remove pleadings if attorneys do not meet regulatory requirements. Many lawyers argue that the regulations will lead to the flattening of the legal process, making it too fast and unprofessional and providing a lot of power to judges.
There is no doubt that the reform will affect any of us who decide to file a lawsuit or find ourselves sued. For example, if today the statement of claim or the statement of defense submitted by our lawyer or we can be as long as the length of the exile, from January there will be a limit on the scope of the pages according to the court, and preliminary hearings can be held even in a conference call or visual committee.
How is the reform related to Corona?
Dr. Marzel: “The Corona Crisis entails a great many legal proceedings that come because of the Corona, including business, commercial disputes and many other matters. These proceedings are already being opened and they will put even more strain on the Israeli legal system, which wants to give them an effective and efficient response. Therefore, the presence of the new civil procedure regulations, as an existing and kicking living tool in the reality of the corona, is necessary and beautiful one hour earlier.
“The restrictions and restraints establish arrangements for the ability to hold hearings in a visual committee extensively, not only as a pilot led by the administration of the courts, but actually allowing every judge in the State of Israel to hold hearings on certain matters in a visual committee. This is a very, very significant tool. “Closing or significant restrictions, so we have a tool here that can be used and we have already tried it and seen that it is useful to prevent a situation of wholesale cancellation of discussions and all that this entails,” he claims.
Is an additional period required to discuss the regulations?
“We support the regulations coming into force on January 1. It should be mentioned that the process of preparation and litigation regarding these regulations has been going on for six years. A lot of work has been done to get comments, comments from academia, the general public and of course comments from the Bar Association. The final product expresses legislative effort. “There’s no point in waiting for another round of comments. The right thing is to get going.”
Does it make sense that such a reform would not pass the legislature as well, as the Bar Association claims?
“The issue is currently pending in the High Court, so I do not want to expand on that. But I’m just saying that the Minister of Justice has clear authority under the Courts Act to enact procedural regulations. This is not the first time this has been done.
“The latest wording of the regulations also embodies the involvement of the legislature through a constitutional committee that discussed the matter and the bottom line is that this is a reform that has gone through all the relevant bodies very extensively.”
The partitions between the 11 Supreme Court justices
(Photo: Judges of the Judiciary)
What are the benefits that the reform provides to the ordinary citizen?
“The new reform is expected to make the procedure much simpler. The number of regulations is shorter, and they are simpler and easier to use. Beyond that, the legal procedure under the new regulations is also expected to be a much faster, simpler, more accurate procedure and therefore much cheaper.
“Demarcation of pleadings, for example, comes to hedge the resources invested in the proceeding at its starting point and focus it. It does not come at the expense of the right of access to the courts nor at the expense of the ability to argue, it is simply managing that resource when it is a very valuable resource.”
Online detention extension: The “social distance” that the government introduced because of the virus requires state systems to switch to online means
“Delays in hearing civil proceedings also have general economic consequences,” Marzel adds. “According to the European index, a verdict in a civil proceeding averages 233 days, while in Israel it stands at 315 days. The more efficient and focused the legal proceeding and the shorter the time between opening and ending the process, then we are talking about an overall economic benefit.”
And what is the disadvantage of the reform?
The downside naturally, as with any reform, is the need to make a change and adapt to those changes. This adjustment has costs, you have to learn something new and prepare for it. “New reforms also have birth defects and the first months may be difficult, but in the medium and long term this is definitely the thing that is necessary to do.”
It has been argued that the new regulations give too much power to judges, perhaps too much. Your position?
“The tools given to judges in the old regulations are insufficient and do not fit the modern reality. If we go back for a moment to the example of the statements of claim, is it really possible to conduct a procedure effectively if any litigant can write a statement of claim to the extent he sees fit? “For a pre-trial hearing without prior preparation? This is not about the use of force, but about conducting an effective and just procedure for the benefit of the individual and the public.”
The new regulations establish a new institution – a legal secretary – is it not dangerous to allow a person who is not a judge the ability to remove statements of claim? “This is an authority that is enshrined in law, and is an important authority in the sense that it comes to regulate all handling of cases where a party does not meet the regulatory requirements in terms of filing documents, but it is not a judicial authority. This is not a decision in the procedure itself. The regulations explicitly state that a party who considers himself aggrieved by any action of the legal secretary may request that the matter be referred to the review and decision of the judge hearing the case. In the end, it is an aid mechanism that should only be welcomed. “
What is your position on the claim that the reform provides efficiency at the expense of justice? “A broad conception of justice, should give expression not only to justice between the litigants themselves, which must be, but also to justice towards the other litigants and the general public. The new regulations establish a series of arrangements which, in our view, also promote justice for the entire public while achieving efficiency. “