Background
Nehemia Fromer filed a private criminal complaint against Hagi Hoberman in the Jerusalem District Court and simultaneously requested a waiver from the court filing fee, citing financial hardship. On June 28, 2026, the District Court denied the waiver, reasoning that private criminal complaints are exceptional, elective proceedings with alternatives, and that the complaint’s prospects appeared weak. The court declared that if the fee was not paid by July 20, 2026, the complaint would be dismissed.
Fromer appealed this decision to the Jerusalem District Court. On July 2, 2026, the District Court rejected the appeal, holding that “a private criminal complaint is a criminal proceeding. The decision regarding the fee is an interlocutory decision in a criminal proceeding, and therefore there is no appeal—neither by right nor by permission—until the criminal proceeding concludes.”
On July 6, 2026, Fromer attempted to file a brief in the Supreme Court, characterizing it as either a request for leave to appeal from the District Court decision or, alternatively, a petition to the High Court of Justice. The Supreme Court Registry rejected the filing the same day, stating that the court does not classify proceedings according to the petitioner’s preference, and that the petitioner must comply with the applicable procedural rules. The Registry noted that if the filing was intended as an appeal from an interlocutory criminal order, appeals were unavailable; if intended as a High Court petition, it lacked the required affidavit and fee payment or proper fee-waiver request.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court, through Registrar Judge Ron Goldstein, upheld the Registry’s rejection. The court held that a brief combining an appeal request and a High Court petition is impermissible because these are “two entirely different proceedings, each subject to its own procedural rules.” An appeal for leave is governed by the Civil Procedure Regulations 2018, while a High Court petition is governed by the High Court of Justice Rules 1984. “The court cannot be left with the task of choosing the procedural route through which the proceeding will be heard. The litigant must choose the proceeding in which he wishes to proceed and draft the brief in accordance with the procedural rules applicable to that proceeding.”
The court clarified that if Fromer pursues a High Court petition, he must pay the fee or submit a proper fee-waiver request with an affidavit and financial documentation. However, the court added an important qualification: if Fromer files a properly formatted leave-to-appeal request, “there would be grounds for its acceptance for registration” despite the Registry’s objections. This is because Fromer is fundamentally challenging whether he possesses any appellate right at all—contesting the District Court’s ruling that interlocutory decisions in criminal proceedings are not appealable. In such circumstances, the Registry’s rejection operates as a substantive decision on the merits of the appeal, not merely a procedural rejection. The court expressly disclaimed any opinion on the merits of such an appeal or the District Court’s substantive decision.
Key Takeaways
- A single filing cannot combine an appeal and a High Court petition as alternative forms of relief; these are separate proceedings requiring distinct procedural compliance.
- The petitioner, not the court, must designate the correct procedural path and ensure compliance with that path’s specific rules.
- When a petitioner challenges the *availability* of an appellate right itself—rather than pursuing a normal appeal—the Supreme Court may exercise discretion to hear the jurisdictional question, treating the Registry’s rejection as a substantive decision.
- High Court petitions require either payment of the filing fee or a properly supported fee-waiver request with affidavit and financial documentation; requests for affidavit waivers must also be substantively justified and documented.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes firm procedural boundaries in Israeli Supreme Court practice and clarifies the gatekeeping role of the Registry. By refusing to retroactively classify filings, the court enforces strict procedural discipline and protects the distinct mechanisms available to litigants—appeal by leave and High Court petition—from collapsing into a single hybrid remedy. The decision also signals that jurisdictional challenges (disputes about whether an appeal is available at all) may receive more favorable treatment than ordinary appeals, as they implicate the structure of access to justice itself rather than the merits of a particular case.
For litigants challenging decisions in criminal proceedings, the ruling underscores that interlocutory orders—including fee decisions—generally are not appealable unless explicit statutory authority exists, and that access to the High Court requires strict compliance with procedural requirements. However, litigants who contest the legal rule barring such appeals may find a pathway through a carefully framed leave-to-appeal request focused on the jurisdictional question.