Background
This decision concerns a request to waive an appeal bond or, alternatively, reduce its amount, filed in an appeal as of right from a June 22, 2026 judgment of the Jerusalem Administrative Affairs Court (Judge A. Averbanel) in עת”מ 77924-12-25. That judgment granted the petition of Respondent 1 and annulled the Israel Police’s decision to limit its response to summoning the appellant, Yitzhak (Itzik) Yehuda, to a command warning interview. The administrative court directed the police to reconsider the appropriate response to Yehuda’s conduct, including his fitness and suitability to continue serving in its ranks.
The underlying events began with a 2018 indictment against Respondent 1 following a confrontation with police officers, including Yehuda. Respondent 1 was acquitted in 2020. In a civil action he brought against the police and Yehuda, it was determined in 2024 that Yehuda had carried out an unlawful arrest through abuse of authority and had instructed an eyewitness to delete a video documenting the incident. Those findings led to the command warning interview later set aside by the administrative judgment.
Yehuda stated that he could not raise the bond. He reported monthly earnings of approximately NIS 15,700, said he was single without children, lived in his late sister’s apartment while paying its mortgage to his parents as heirs, and financially assisted his parents, pensioners in their eighties with debts and loans. He supplied his father’s account statements and loan and overdraft documents, and argued that the appeal concerned his reputation, livelihood and service and had good prospects. Respondent 1 opposed both forms of relief and sought costs, citing Yehuda’s stable income, absence of rent, prior fee payments, private representation in a defamation action, and enforcement proceedings concerning earlier debts. He also challenged the affidavit’s authentication and the absence of Yehuda’s own financial records. The State opposed a full exemption without complete, current evidence but left reduction to the court’s discretion.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Ron Goldstein explained that, for a request of this kind, exemption from a bond or reduction based on financial inability requires two cumulative conditions: proof of inability through complete and current factual and evidentiary material, and real prospects of success in the proceeding. The applicant must also show that the bond cannot be raised with assistance from the applicant’s close circle. The decision cited בשג”ץ 4934/14 Gornstein v. Knesset of Israel (July 21, 2014), ע”ר 80007-02-26 Pinhas v. Commissioner of Insolvency and Economic Rehabilitation Proceedings (March 4, 2026), and ע”א 1741/22 Kleiman v. Makais (May 8, 2022).
The Registrar held that service in the security forces, although sometimes relevant to financial capacity—particularly for unpaid conscripts—did not relieve Yehuda of the obligation to present his full financial picture. A defect in the affidavit’s signature certification, which identified another person, was treated as technical and given no significant weight in this application. The decisive evidentiary problem was the absence of Yehuda’s own bank statements, credit-card records, or any organized document presenting his overall finances. The Registrar was prepared to assume difficulty obtaining help from relatives given the family circumstances, but found no proof that other sources were unavailable. Payments Respondent 1 had received under earlier judgments were irrelevant because this was a new, independent appeal and the bond secured respondents’ costs in this proceeding.
The request for a complete exemption was therefore denied. Taking into account the State’s position on reduction, the appeal’s characteristics and possible consequences for Yehuda’s occupation, and Respondent 1’s opposition, the Registrar reduced the bond to NIS 15,000. It must be deposited by November 19, 2026; otherwise, the proceeding may be struck without a further decision. Because the application succeeded in part, no costs order was made.
Key Takeaways
- The Registrar denied a full exemption but reduced this appellant’s bond to NIS 15,000, with a November 19, 2026 deposit deadline.
- On this financial-inability application, incomplete personal banking and credit records prevented proof that Yehuda could not raise the required amount.
- The affidavit’s incorrect certification details were treated as a technical defect, not a decisive ground for rejecting the request.
- The reduction reflected the proceeding’s particular circumstances, its possible occupational consequences, and the State leaving reduction to judicial discretion; no costs were awarded.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the documentation expected when an appellant seeks relief from a bond on financial-inability grounds: assertions about salary and family support may not substitute for the applicant’s own complete, current financial records. It also distinguishes a discretionary, case-specific reduction from entitlement to a full exemption.
The ruling does not decide the merits of Yehuda’s appeal or revisit the administrative court’s findings. It regulates the financial condition for pursuing that appeal, while warning that nonpayment may result in the proceeding being struck without another decision.