Court ruling8/13/2026

High Court of Justice: The “Net HaMishpat” System Will Be Registered as a Database

The High Court of Justice considered attorney Bini Goldberg’s claims concerning the protection of personal information in the court system’s “Net HaMishpat” system. After changes were made and an application was submitted to register the system as a database, the Court ruled that the petition had run its course, dismissed it, and awarded the petitioner expenses of 15,000 shekels.

Key facts

•Case: HCJ 6207/17
•Court: The Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice
•Decision: April 30, 2019
•The petition was dismissed after it had run its course
•Expenses awarded to the petitioner: 15,000 shekels
•Law: Protection of Privacy Law, 5741–1981

What Was the Dispute?

The petition was filed against the Courts Administration, the Privacy Protection Authority in the Ministry of Justice, and the Israel Police. The petitioner argued that “Net HaMishpat” exposes the personal details of participants in legal proceedings to parties unrelated to the proceedings, and demanded that all cases be considered confidential by default. He also insisted that the system be registered as a database pursuant to the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741–1981.

What Changes Were Made?

In June 2018, a secure identification mechanism was added to the system for viewing and filing small claims. The Courts Administration also restricted casual visitors’ access to details about participants in proceedings, updated permissions management, and strengthened protection against cyber threats. On March 13, 2019, it submitted an application to register “Net HaMishpat” as a database.

The Court’s Position

The Court emphasized the importance of “Net HaMishpat” for the efficient management of cases and did not agree with a sweeping denial of the system’s usefulness. At the same time, it acknowledged that the petition contributed to efforts to strengthen privacy protection. In view of the measures taken, the Court found no grounds for intervention at this stage and ordered the petition dismissed after it had run its course.

Public Access and Data Protection

In the Court’s view, the online publication of judgments ensures the principle of open justice, but it must take into account the exceptions prescribed by law and the requirements of privacy protection. Maintaining this balance generally falls within the authority of the Courts Administration. The Court proceeded on the assumption that it would continue addressing issues that still require a solution.

What this means for you

Materials from open court cases may still be accessible to the public, but details concerning other participants in the proceedings must be protected in accordance with the law and access settings. The decision also indicates that systemic petitions concerning privacy may lead to technical and administrative changes even without a final judicial order prohibiting the activity.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings