CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN ISRAEL

This article will provide guidance on the Code of Civil Procedure in Israel. Israeli courts have followed the English precedent established in Hollington v. Hewthorn in ruling that evidence from prior criminal trials coming out of the same set of events is inadmissible in civil lawsuits; even a conviction has no probative value.

Within the Israeli judicial system, there are three levels of civil courts. Most disputes, including those involving monetary claims of less than 2.5 million shekels, are heard by magistrate courts, the lowest level of trial courts in Israel. For international service of process, Undisputed Legal’s process servers are highly adept at delivering service across the globe. We are well-informed about the delivery of papers per the Hague Service Convention. Still, we are also proficient at serving papers for countries not signatories to the Convention. We comply with domestic and international legal requirements and can assure our clients of the safety of their documents.

BACKGROUND

Israel's highest court is the Supreme Court. It has appellate jurisdiction over lower courts and the High Court of Justice review authority. Every one of the Supreme Court's rulings is unquestionably final and cannot be challenged in any lower court. Because of its status as a High Court of Justice, the Supreme Court may hear appeals from citizens who disagree with laws or government policies. It can even review certain judgments made by lower courts and other specialized tribunals. While the High Court of Justice may be the first judicial body in certain situations, it is not a trial court. It uses the administrative rules of evidence rather than the civil law standards of evidence. At Undisputed Legal, we examine the legal requirements for both the originating country as well as the country receiving process, which means that we will also familiarize ourselves with the receiving courts’ legal requirements.

The Courts Administrator estimates that the typical civil trial in a magistrate court takes eleven months (not including claims that are resolved prior to judgment). District court civil processes (including claims resolved before final judgment) typically last about seventeen months on average. The district courts sit somewhere in the middle of the judicial hierarchy. First instance for monetary claims above 2.5 million shekels and an appeal court for magistrate courts (usually composed of panels of three judges) (typically with one judge hearing the case). Real property ownership disputes, corporate problems, corporate insolvency, and administrative cases are within the district court's purview as established by law. In addition to hearing cases that fall beyond the purview of the magistrate courts, the district court also possesses ‘residual jurisdiction,’ or the authority to consider cases outside the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court.

WHEN CAN A CLAIM BE FILED IN A CIVIL COURT

According to the statute of limitations, the standard time restriction for taking civil claims to court is seven years. The statute of limitations for some claims may be shorter or longer. The statute of limitations for real estate claims is fifteen or twenty-five years, depending on the kind of land registered, while the statute of limitations for insurance claims is three years. Even if a lawsuit is filed within the statute of limitations period, it may be dismissed for being filed too late.

To initiate a civil case, a plaintiff must file a ‘statement of claim’ with the appropriate court. The defendant receives the statement of claim and summons to court through courier or registered mail. After that, the defendant has between thirty and a hundred and twenty days (depending on the kind of claim) to file a statement of defense after being served with the plaintiff's statement of claim.

In ordinary claims, after all statements of defense have been filed, the plaintiff may (but is not required to) make a response to the statement of defense within fourteen days. In regular claims, the parties have thirty days after the final pleading is filed (the last statement of defense or the reply to the statement of defense) to exchange requests for disclosure of documents and questionnaires. All parties are required to respond to these requests within thirty more days. After the exchange of such requests and answers, the parties may file motions in response to them in accordance with a rigorous timeframe before the first pretrial hearing. After then, pretrial proceedings might address the motion and other procedural concerns.

After the final statement of defense or reply to the statement of defense is filed and the parties have exchanged all relevant papers, the judge will often schedule a pretrial hearing. Our process servers will strive to ensure that documents are served in accordance with court timelines, although the timelines for international service are usually longer than domestic. The clerks of the different Magistrate's courts may mail the documents with a certificate of service or hand-deliver them to the addressee.

A family member who resides at the same location and looks at least eighteen years old may accept service of process on behalf of the person to be served if that person is not home to receive it. In addition, if the court clerk makes three attempts to deliver the papers to the addressee and still receives no response, the clerk may legally serve the documents by posting them on the door of the addressee.

In consideration of the contentious disputes in Israel, it is a matter of some concern to clients who reside in the Palestinian Authority. Our servers will attempt to serve any paperwork for those living in the Palestinian Authority, but the documents need to be sent to the Director of Courts instead. These papers are sent to the Palestinian Authority by this body. Including Arabic and Hebrew translations of the papers and the entire name of the intended recipient (four names) is imperative. The applicant's ID number must be included in the request, which should be as specific as possible, including the complete address.

PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES IN ISRAEL

Procedures and schedules are mostly out of the parties' hands. Regulations and judicial rulings often dictate the schedule. The court can accept the parties' proposed time extensions or procedural agreements or reject them and impose its schedule. Yet, extensions of time are regularly sought and granted, especially if no extensions were previously asked.

The parties must provide each other with all required papers. During the disclosure phase, both parties must provide any relevant documents and communications, regardless of how useful they may be to their cause. Within one month following filing the final statement of defense, the parties are required under the recently enacted civil process reform of 2021 to meet together and exchange documents in a manner similar to depositions (or reply to the statement of defense).

If the court does award extraterritorial service leave, the defendant may still try to have it overturned by alleging that one of the requirements was not followed. Given the existing backlog in the judicial system, the new civil procedural rules that went into effect this year appear necessary in order to set up a new framework for conducting legal proceedings that would facilitate the simplification, speeding up, and standardization of those procedures. In addition, the present reform superseded civil procedural laws that have been mostly unchanged since 1963.

The first section of the Rules lays forth fundamental principles that intend to function as an interpretative guide throughout judicial proceedings. This means that anytime a gap appears or an interpretation dilemma occurs; there is a set of guidelines to help expedite and simplify the settlement of the problem in accordance with the principles established by the law.

PRE-TRIAL HEARING IN ISRAEL

Realistically, a judge at a pre-trial hearing will see a case in which the parties have not even addressed the disagreement between themselves. The new rules are the first time the law has mandated specific details on how pleas must be laid up, how much material must be included, and how long they may be. A statement of claim must include a title, a summary of the claims, and details. The total number of pages for all three is limited based on the type of procedure: a claim will not exceed eleven pages if submitted to the Magistrate's Court and fifteen pages if submitted to the District Court.

Interim motions (i.e., petitions that are not the primary statement of claim) are restricted to a maximum of five pages (unless for an application for temporary relief, which is limited to eight pages) and three pages, respectively, for the affidavits attached to the application or answer (or six pages in an application for temporary relief).

Israel's pre-trial process has been notable for its progressive elimination of the judicial preliminary inquiry and expansion of discovery. Three distinct phases may be identified in the preliminary investigation. A public preliminary inquiry by a magistrate was made mandatory in all criminal prosecutions under English-style laws enacted in Mandatory in 1924. This role was not investigative but accusatory (responsible for bringing charges against the defendant). Similar to the United States grand jury system, the preliminary inquiry in Palestine and Israel was established to protect innocent people from unfair prosecution ‘through which false charges cannot make it.

The Israeli Supreme Court has said that the adversarial nature of the preliminary investigation allows the accused to get potentially crucial details for their defense during the cross-examination of witnesses who gave police depositions. A ‘passive’ review of the prosecution's file would not provide such new material. With the elimination of the preliminary investigation, even in the most severe offenses, there is no longer any pre-trial court oversight over the administrative conduct of the prosecutor. If the defense moves for its production, the prosecution must comply, and if it fails, the witness's evidence will be excluded from the trial.

EXTRATERRITORIAL PROCESS SERVICING AND SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION

According to the present Civil Law Procedure Regulations, a plaintiff who wishes to file suit against a defendant outside of Israel must first get the court's permission to effect extraterritorial service of process. The jurisdiction of the Israeli court over a foreign defendant is established by the serving of process under such leave; quite a few defendants lost, which is where a private Israel process service agency like Undisputed Legal comes into play.

If the plaintiff satisfies the cumulative service of process requirements, the court will award leave of service. The plaintiff must prove that there is sufficient cause for action and that the situation warrants judicial resolution. Generally speaking, a claim showing a sufficient cause of action for the purpose of granting leave of service is not completely without merit on the face of it, and for which the plaintiff has demonstrated that the Israeli forum is the most appropriate forum for the adjudication of the dispute. If the court determines that another venue (forum non conveniens) is more suitable, it may deny the motion. In order to succeed, the plaintiff must show that their claim meets one of the bases for service.

The Enforcement of Foreign Judgements Act is a law that governs the process of enforcing foreign judgments (1958). Israel mostly depends on bilateral agreements it has with other nations. Reciprocity is necessary for a country's judgments to be recognized in another (except in exceptional cases). Further, the Hague Convention on 5 October 1961 (the Apostille Convention), eliminating the need for the legalization of foreign public documents, has been ratified by Israel. It offers apostille services and recognizes authorized legal papers from other Convention member nations.

When both the magistrate court and the specialized tribunal lack jurisdiction, the case is sent to the district court, which has appellate authority over the magistrate court. When sitting as trial courts, district courts typically have one judge presiding; however, they often have three judges when sitting as appellate courts. Both the District Court in Tel Aviv and the District Court in Haifa have economic divisions. Economic matters (such as shareholder disputes or derivative lawsuits) fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of these economic courts. Each court is presided over by a judge with extensive expertise in the subject matter.

The Hague Service Convention is a multilateral convention enacted at the Hague, Netherlands, on November 15, 1965, by member states of the Hague Conference on Private International Law for the purpose of serving civil and commercial proceedings. There are several factors to consider before attempting the international service of process, including the time, the cost, whether or not a translation will be required, and how difficult it will be to complete. The efficiency with which service of process may be accomplished is highly dependent on the method used, but it can never be guaranteed. When in doubt, preparing for anticipated obstacles and interruptions is best. Our process servers follow international conventions and domestic laws to effectively and reliably serve papers on defendants in another nation.

OUR PROCESS

Documents can be faxed at (800) 296-0115, emailed ps@undisputedlegal.com, or uploaded to our website. We do require prepayment and accept all major credit and debit cards. Once payment is processed, your sales receipt is immediately emailed for your records.

Drop-offs must call and make an appointment first to be added to building security to permit access to our office. Documents for service must be in a sealed envelope with payment in the form of a money order or attorney check (WE DO NOT ACCEPT CASH) payable to UNDISPUTED LEGAL INC.; All documents are received by our receptionist.

DOMESTIC COVERAGE AREAS:

INTERNATIONAL COVERAGE AREAS:

OFFICE LOCATIONS

New York: (212) 203-8001 – 590 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10022
Brooklyn: (347) 983-5436 – 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201
Queens: (646) 357-3005 – 118-35 Queens Blvd, Suite 400, Forest Hills, New York 11375
Long Island: (516) 208-4577 – 626 RXR Plaza, 6th Floor, Uniondale, New York 11556
Westchester: (914) 414-0877 – 50 Main Street, 10th Floor, White Plains, New York 10606
Connecticut: (203) 489-2940 – 500 West Putnam Avenue, Suite 400, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830
New Jersey: (201) 630-0114 - 101 Hudson Street, 21 Floor, Jersey City, New Jersey 07302
Washington DC: (202) 655-4450 - 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300, Washington DC 20004

FOR ASSISTANCE SERVING LEGAL PAPERS IN ISRAEL

Simply pick up the phone and call Toll-Free (800) 774-6922 or click the service you want to purchase. Our dedicated team of professionals is ready to assist you. We can handle all your Israel process service needs; no job is too small or too large! For instructions on How To Serve Legal Papers in Israel, Click Here!

Contact us for more information about our process serving agency. We are ready to provide service of process to all our clients globally from our offices in New York, Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C.

"Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction, and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives"- Foster, William A

Sources

1. Hollington v Hawthorn, 1975 CanLIIDocs 4

2. Statute of limitations in Israel

30-day time limit on minor claims;
less than a month's time for procedures;
commonplace claims: sixty days; and
The statute of limitations for a claim of medical malpractice is 120 days.

3. However, Section 2 mandates that the judicial system be impartial, proportional, and efficient in its handling of all claims brought before it, as well as independent and autonomous in its operations and open to the public in all hearings.

4. In light of the above, it is evident that new legislation must be enacted to account for the strain on the legal system, the reality in which we now find ourselves, and, most importantly, the numerous insights obtained due to litigations and court judgments over the years. Accordingly, all topics pertaining to the procedural management of the dispute were subject to a thorough reform within the scope of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779 - 2018, which went into effect in January 2021.

5. The goals of the Regulations are stated in Section 1: ‘the establishment of a procedure for conducting civil proceedings in court, the creation of procedural certainty, the prevention of arbitrariness, and the attainment of the constitutional principles underlying a worthy and fair judicial process, in order to discover the truth and reach the correct result and just resolution of the dispute.’

6. Sections 34 and 35 of the Regulations mandate that parties to a dispute hold at least two meetings without a judge present prior to the pre-trial hearing in an effort to reach some agreements or at least reduce the scope of the issues in the contest, in light of the many benefits inherent in there being an effective dialogue between the parties before the beginning of the hearing.

7. In view of the above, the revised arrangement in Section 56 of the Regulations requires that no more than 25 questions (including any sub-questions) be included in the questionnaire method (save for financial claims worth more than NIS 2.5 million and CTAV claims, which are both limited to 50 questions). Some may find that both parties benefit from the limited scope of the interrogatory since it allows the discovery process to zero in on the meat of the matter rather than wasting time trying to exhaust the other side.

8. In 1959, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of the preliminary inquiry judge's role.

9. There are a number of factors that can prevent Israel from recognising and enforcing a foreign judgement, such as whether or not doing so would violate Israeli sovereignty or security, whether the foreign court's decision would be unenforceable in the foreign country, whether or not the content of the foreign court's decision would be contrary to Israeli public policy, etc.