Muhammad Abu Fani (Maccabi) and Gal Aral (HaPoel) confront each other on the grass, at the end of that Haifa derby (Photo: Maor Al-Kalsalsi, Maor Al-Kalsalsi)
Following a brawl that occurred at the end of the derby match between the soccer team of the Hapoel Haifa club and the soccer team of the Maccabi Haifa club on February 10, 2021, the "Success" association submitted an administrative petition to the district court in Haifa requesting that the court order the Haifa economic company and its subsidiary company that manages the club Sami Ofer Stadium in Haifa, to present to her the photographs taken by the stadium's security cameras on the day of the event on the grounds that this is to promote the prevention of violence in sports.
The office of AYR - Amr Reiter Jean Shuchtovitz & Co., which represents the national soccer champion, Maccabi Haifa, opposed the petition on the grounds that the delivery of the photographs (videos) taken by the stadium's security cameras in the stadium's internal corridors in which players, officials of various positions, and other nearby parties are seen to the players' dressing rooms, involves a violation of the privacy of those photographed in them in violation of the Privacy Protection Law, 1981-5771 and their contribution to the prevention of violence in sports is minimal and therefore does not justify the violation of privacy involved in handing them over to the petitioner.
In a ruling given by the District Court in Haifa (Judge Daniel Fish) , the district court adopted the position of the Maccabi Haifa football club and determined that the videos of the stadium's security cameras that record the interior corridors of the stadium should not be handed over to the petitioner in view of the violation of privacy involved and the marginal contribution of the videos to the prevention of violence in sports.
The district court ruled that, unlike the grass of the stadium which is exposed to the public eye, the internal parts of the football stadium which include the players' tunnel, which are normally not exposed to the general public who are not authorized to enter them, are within the scope of the only authority where there is a legitimate expectation of privacy.
San Menachem against Hapoel.
From the events of that derby (Photo: Maor Alxalsi, .)
It was further determined that the consent of those photographed by the security cameras in these areas is to be filmed for specific needs relating to the detection of crimes, maintaining order, etc. and they should not be attributed consent to the distribution of the videos in which they are photographed in public and through the media.
For these reasons, it was determined that the delivery of the security camera videos from the interior of the stadium constitutes an infringement of privacy to such an extent that it exceeds their contribution to the prevention of violence in sports.
The precedent: the precedent is in defining internal parts of a public stadium as the only authority in which there is a legitimate expectation of privacy, as well as a determination that the consent of those photographed by security cameras is limited to the accepted uses related to the security of the stadium (detecting crimes, maintaining order, etc.) when the distribution of the videos in public and by means of communication exceeds this goal and therefore is an invasion of privacy.
Maccabi Haifa was represented by attorneys Roi Dotan, Ofer Ben-Asa, Shir Shoshani Katz and Ronli Asher from the office of AYR - Amar Reiter Jean Shuchtovitz & Co.
More in Walla!
The breakthroughs, the treatments and what does the future hold?
Everything you need to know about diabetes
In collaboration with Sanofi
Attorney Roi Dotan, Partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department, AYR - Amar Reiter Jean Shuchtovitz & Co. (Photo: Nir Amos)
Of money
Tags
Maccabi Haifa
Hapoel Haifa
Court