Background
The applicant sought an order under Israel’s Prevention of Threatening Harassment Law, 2001. The Beersheba Magistrates’ Court denied the application on June 18, 2026, and the Beersheba District Court dismissed his appeal on July 14, 2026. On September 14, 2026, the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because the matter concerned only the applicant’s individual circumstances, raised no issue warranting a third-instance appeal, and presented no risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Court also concluded that the applicant’s allegations were not suited to proceedings under the statute.
Because the applicant had continued to pursue meritless proceedings and advance claims inappropriate to the procedure despite repeated explanations from multiple courts, the Supreme Court ordered him to pay NIS 2,000 in costs to the State Treasury. After the Court rejected two reconsideration requests filed on September 18 and 20, the applicant submitted a third request, this time asking the Court to cancel the costs award. He argued that the statute imposes no numerical limit on applications and permits proceedings against public employees.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Yechiel Kasher denied the third reconsideration request. The Court first noted a threshold obstacle: it was doubtful that a reconsideration procedure was available at all for a decision denying leave to appeal. Even assuming such a procedure existed, the applicant’s arguments did not justify changing the September 14 decision.
The Court accepted that, when circumstances warrant, there is no fixed limit on the number of proceedings a litigant may bring under the Prevention of Threatening Harassment Law. That proposition did not excuse abuse of process. Like every litigant, the applicant was required to refrain from misusing judicial proceedings. He had been told repeatedly—including in connection with at least ten applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court—that his claims did not belong in threatening-harassment proceedings and, still less, justified a third-instance appeal. He had also been warned that continued misuse could result in costs. The Court therefore left the NIS 2,000 costs award intact.
As an exceptional measure, the Court imposed no additional costs for this reconsideration request because it concerned the earlier costs award. It warned, however, that further meritless proceedings or applications could result in additional costs.
Key Takeaways
- A decision denying leave to appeal is not ordinarily subject to reconsideration, and the Court identified the availability of such a procedure as a threshold obstacle.
- The absence of a numerical limit on threatening-harassment proceedings does not permit repetitive or abusive litigation.
- Repeatedly filing claims in an unsuitable procedural framework after express judicial warnings can justify an award of costs to the State Treasury.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a litigant’s formal ability to initiate statutory proceedings from the obligation to use those proceedings for their intended purpose. Even where legislation sets no express filing limit, courts may sanction repetitive claims that amount to abuse of process.
It also underscores the narrow scope of third-instance review and the procedural difficulty of seeking reconsideration after leave to appeal has been denied. Litigants who persist after courts have explained that their claims are procedurally unsuitable face escalating costs consequences.