Execution Proceedings
A Process Server's Affidavit Verified With a Pasted Stamp: How the Right to Be Heard Is Erased in Israeli Execution Files
A man was outside Israel continuously from November 2023 to July 2025. During that same period, reports were filed with Israeli execution offices stating that documents had been handed to him in person. We examined four files brought by four different creditors and found a single common thread. In a recorded call, the lawyer who verified the process servers' affidavits said his verification is pasted onto them, and that he has no control over the servers.
In short
- The process server's affidavit is the foundation on which the entire execution chain rests. Section 15 of the Evidence Ordinance requires the declarant to sign after being warned, and the person who gave the warning to confirm on the face of the affidavit that it was given.
- In a recorded call of 6 October 2025, a lawyer who verifies affidavits for a delivery company stated that his verification is pasted onto them, and that he has no control over the servers.
- In four files brought by four different creditors, personal service was reported during a period in which the recipient was continuously outside Israel.
- In one file, on 21 October 2025, the Execution Registrar ordered every action cancelled and an attorney fee of NIS 21,456 cancelled. The service itself cost NIS 81.90.
- The right to be heard is anchored in a treaty Israel ratified in 1991, and access to the courts is recognised in Israel as a right of constitutional standing.
An execution file does not open with an attachment order. It opens with a document telling a person that proceedings have been commenced against him, and giving him a window in which to respond. Everything that follows — the attachments, the restrictions, the stay of exit from the country — rests on the assumption that this document reached its destination.
That assumption, in turn, rests on a single piece of paper. The process server's affidavit.
What the law requires before a file is opened
A claim for a specified amount is filed directly for execution, without first being heard by a court. For that reason the legislature built in two gates.
The first gate is a prior demand. Under section 81A1 of the Execution Law, 5727-1967, the creditor must send the debtor a written demand by registered mail and wait thirty days before filing.
The second gate is the warning. Once the file is opened a warning is served on the debtor, and from the moment of service he has thirty days to pay, to request an instalment arrangement, or to file an objection. A debtor who misses that deadline loses the right to be heard — not because his arguments were rejected, but because nobody heard them.
Personal service is governed by regulation 161(4)(a) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018. Affixing the document to the recipient's door is not a parallel route but an exception, permitted under regulation 161(4)(b)(2) only after reasonable and proper efforts to locate the recipient.
What holds a server's affidavit together
Section 15 of the Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971, sets three cumulative requirements. A written statement signed by the declarant. A warning given to the declarant as to his duty to state the truth. And confirmation by the person who gave the warning, on the face of the affidavit itself, that the warning was given.
The practical meaning is simple. The verifying lawyer does not confirm that service took place. He was not there. He confirms one thing only: that the server stood in front of him, was warned, and understood that he was signing a document in which a false statement carries the penalty of perjury.
That is the one and only control point in the entire chain.
What was said in the recorded call
On 6 October 2025 at 11:45 a recorded call took place with attorney Wael Nujidat, whose verification signature appears on affidavits of servers of the company Pisga Deliveries and Couriers. A transcript of the call was filed with the court.
On the scale of his work with the company, the lawyer said:
“Of course I know them, I work with them. How can you ask me if I know them? I verify affidavits for them all the time.”
On the manner of verification:
“Yes, the verification is pasted on. Because it is a large company and they have many affidavits, so it is pasted, but I work with them here.”
And on the extent of his supervision of the servers:
“I have no control over the servers, they can do whatever they want. They are responsible for their own actions. I simply verify what they tell me. They tell me: I sent it, I served it, I did not serve it. They are responsible for that, not me.”
In the same call the lawyer was asked directly whether this was forgery, and answered:
“No, brother. It is not forged, everything is in order.”
And further: “Nobody would do such a thing, because afterwards it all comes out and they get a criminal file and actual prison. There are no forgeries here, everything is fine.”
We reproduce his words in full, including the denial. That said, the description he himself gave of the verification process — a pasted stamp on account of the volume of affidavits, and no control over the servers — does not sit with the requirement in section 15 of the Evidence Ordinance that the person who gave the warning confirms on the face of the affidavit that he is the one who warned the declarant.
Four files, the same period, the same question
A traveller record from the Population and Immigration Authority shows a continuous stay outside Israel from 7 November 2023 until 12 July 2025. Within that period, reports of personal service were filed in several files.
Bank Mizrahi Tefahot, file 506468-12-24, through the law firm Chen, Fisher, Gabbay of Netanya. The service report stated that the warning was handed to the debtor in person on 22 December 2024 and that he refused to sign. On that same day the debtor was outside the country. On 21 October 2025 the Execution Registrar ordered the service date corrected, all actions in the file cancelled, and the attorney fee added to the debt cancelled. The cancelled fee was NIS 21,456. The service itself cost NIS 81.90. This is the only one of the four in which the question of service was expressly decided.
Max It Financial Services, file 507871-12-23, through attorney Sharon Ziv of Kfar Saba. A server's affidavit in the name of Shlomo Ben Hamo stated that the claim documents were handed to the debtor in person on 14 July 2024. That date too falls within the period abroad. The objection was filed late for that very reason, and on 14 October 2025 the Execution Registrar ordered the objection, together with the motion for extension of time, transferred to the Kfar Saba Magistrates Court. The matter is pending and has not been decided on the merits.
Partner Communications, TT 2772-10-25, through the firm Y. Shapira & Co. of Tel Aviv. The pre-filing demand was sent on 15 August 2024 and bears internal file number 78/76309. That same number appears on service confirmations of Pisga Deliveries and Couriers. In a recorded call of 3 November 2025 a representative of the firm said: “And the problem we have here with the deliveries.” The matter ended in a settlement given the force of judgment on 10 May 2026, in the sum of NIS 6,152, expressly without admission by either party and without any determination on the question of service.
A fourth file ended in an arrangement and is not covered here.
Separately, on 5 October 2025 a complaint was filed with the Israel Police alleging forgery under section 418 of the Penal Law in connection with service reports. The complaint remains under handling. Filing a complaint is neither a finding nor a conviction.
What the case law says
In a decision of 16 March 2026 in TT 47000-02-23 Mimun Yashir of the Yashir Group (2006) Ltd v. Maron, Kfar Saba Magistrates Court, Senior Registrar Reut Ziv held:
“The purpose of the warning is to put the debtor on notice of the very commencement of proceedings against him and of the possibility that enforcement measures will be taken against him, and therefore a debtor's rights may not be impaired except after it has been duly served. Accordingly, the rule in execution proceedings is service of the warning, while reliance on mere awareness constitutes an exception to the rule.”
And on the character of the defect, in the same decision: “This is not a merely technical act, but a substantive failure.”
In that case the registrar ordered the proceedings cancelled, the execution file closed in its entirety, and costs of NIS 5,000 imposed on the creditor.
Why the right to be heard is not a formality
The right to be heard is not a procedural custom. It is a fundamental right, recognised as such in two systems at once.
In 1991 Israel ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 14 guarantees the right to a fair hearing before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of a person's rights and obligations. The UN Human Rights Committee, the body authorised to interpret the Covenant, held in its official interpretation that the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial “is a key element of human rights protection”.
The standing of the right can be measured at the extreme. The same Committee held that even during a national state of emergency, when a state may suspend other rights, the principles of legality and the rule of law require that the fundamental requirements of fair trial be respected. A right that may not be impaired even in an emergency is not one that can be given up in a routine collection proceeding for want of checking.
Israeli courts have recognised access to the courts as a right of constitutional standing. A proceeding in which a person did not know, was not heard and brought no evidence is not a proceeding. It only looks like one.
Who pays the price
The gap is not distributed evenly. A represented debtor identifies the defect, files for an extension of time, and raises the argument while it still matters.
The real casualty is the unrepresented debtor. The person who does not know what a specified-amount claim is, what separates an objection from an ordinary motion, which forms must be completed and where they are filed — all within a deadline that began to run without his knowledge. For him the proceeding ends before it begins. With no evidence, no witnesses and no protocol.
What to check in your own file
- The warning form. When it was served, on whom, at which address, and whether that is an address you actually lived at on that date.
- The server's affidavit. The server's name, the date, and whether the lawyer's verification appears originally signed or pasted on.
- The traveller record for the relevant period, if you were abroad.
- If there is a gap between the report and reality, an objection may be filed and cancellation sought of measures and fees imposed unlawfully.
Sources: Execution Law, 5727-1967, section 81A1; Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018, regulation 161; Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971, section 15; TT 47000-02-23 Mimun Yashir v. Maron, Kfar Saba Magistrates Court, Senior Registrar Reut Ziv, 16.3.2026; Execution Registrar decision of 21.10.2025 in file 506468-12-24; Execution Registrar decision of 14.10.2025 in file 507871-12-23; judgment of 10.5.2026 in TT 2772-10-25, Tel Aviv Magistrates Court; call transcripts of 6.10.2025 and 3.11.2025; traveller record, Population and Immigration Authority; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14; UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32 (2007) and General Comment No. 29 (2001).
Disclaimer: Save for the decision of 21 October 2025, no judicial determination on the question of service has been given in the files described, and the contentions on that question remain undecided. A complaint filed with the police is neither a conviction nor a finding. The words of every person mentioned, including their denials, are reproduced as spoken.
This section is general information, not legal advice. Every case is examined on its own facts.
