Dear Thom,

Thank you for the update.

Given this information, would you feel comfortable reaching out to Pels Rijcken on our behalf to check the feasibility of representation in this case? I realize that they may be unable to represent us for the reasons detailed in your earlier email. However, I would prefer to exhaust the inquiry rather than rule them out prematurely.

As for Mrs. Van der Plas, we would want to schedule an introductory call to briefly acquaint ourselves with her before making a final decision regarding representation. In the interim, perhaps we can work on finding a convenient time on both ends (I would need to coordinate with my colleague from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well). Would you prefer that I liaise directly with Mrs. Van der Plas's office regarding the technicalities?

Many thanks.

Galit

From: Th.O.M. Dieben [mailto:dieben@jahae.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 3:32 PM
To: Galit Raguan
Cc: Talya Schein; Vered Shpilman; Shani lee Fisher; jahae@jahae.nl; Marlene Mazel
Subject: Re: re. memo and law firms [D17056-3102115]

Van: Galit Raguan <GalitRa@justice.gov.il>
Datum: dinsdag, 27 juni 2017 16:55
Aan: "Th.O.M. Dieben" <dieben@jahae.nl>, "jahae@jahae.nl" <jahae@jahae.nl>
CC: Vered Shpilman <VeredSh@justice.gov.il>, Marlene Mazel <MarleneM@justice.gov.il>, Talya Schein <TalyaSc@justice.gov.il>, Shani lee
Fisher <ShanileeF@justice.gov.il>
Onderwerp: re. memo and law firms

Dear Han and Thom,

First and foremost, I am happy to be joining the team and look forward to working together.

Many thanks for the memo you provided yesterday. It was helpful in providing information about some of the preliminary issues which could arise if – more likely when – a civil suit is indeed filed.

We have a number of additional questions, which I will briefly outline below. If you feel it is more convenient to discuss these via phone, we are happy to schedule a conference call later in the week.

1.      Could you address in more detail the subject of state and official immunity under Dutch law and how it would apply in a case such as this?

2.      Is it possible in a case such as this for the Government of Israel to submit a request to the court, once a lawsuit is filed, to take the place of the Israeli officials as a formal defendant, given that the claims raised are essentially aimed toward the State? In this context, we would be curious to read Church of Scientology v. Bauer Verlag, 65 ILR 380 (1980), if available in English. The case was referenced in a textbook discussion of state immunity (Rosanne van Alebeek) and perhaps could be of relevance. Would such a move have any potential adverse effects for us, e.g., negate raising the claim of state immunity/lack of jurisdiction later on in the proceedings? Also, when would be the optimal time to make such a request?

3.      In paras. 60-62 of the memo you addressed the question of whether or not to respond to the letter received. We wonder if strategically, it would not be wise to provide a reasoned response to the letter detailing Israel's position regarding the incident. Perhaps this would put us in a more favorable position publically and also in the eyes of a court, when the time comes. This could be an opportunity to establish that our legal system is robust and that these allegations were taken seriously and examined, and perhaps this could affect the position of the bailiff? At the same time, we would want to ensure that responding to the letter would not negate a future claim of lack of jurisdiction/immunity, etc.

4.      Are you able to specify who exactly within the Ministry of Justice would be the person responsible for responding to the bailiff or requesting to intervene/join (specifically Sander de Haas)?

5.      Is it possible and customary for the courts to first hear arguments regarding jurisdiction and immunity and only at a later stage, if necessary, hear arguments pertaining to the substantive issue; or would the defendants be expected to raise any and all claims at the same stage of the proceedings?

6.      Finally, with respect to the issue of representation addressed in paras. 69-70 of the memo, it is my understanding from my conversation with Vered that she does not recall making any categorical determination regarding the issue of conflict of interest. Our previous experience with complaints or lawsuits abroad has shown that in an overwhelming majority of cases, there is single representation for the defendants and litigation is handled by the Government, pursuant to a power-of-attorney by the defendants providing it with the authority to do so. While at this time, we believe it is unlikely that a conflict of interest will arise in this case, obviously this would be assessed on a continual basis, and separate representation could be obtained at any time at the request of the defendants or if we were to feel this is more prudent. I understood from Vered that she explained this during your discussion last week, but for the sake of clarity, saw fit to reiterate.

With regard to the addition of a civil law firm to the team – thanks very much for your detailed and thoughtful email on the matter. It was extremely helpful. If acceptable, we would be grateful if you could contact your colleagues at both Braus, Blackstone, Westbroek, and Hocker Advocaten as soon as possible, and inquire whether they would have any conflict of interest representing Israel and/or Israeli officials in this matter and also what the hourly rate for such representation would be. This will assist us in moving forward in this regard.

I look forward to hearing from you and am available should you wish to further discuss.

Kind regards,

(Ms.) Galit Raguan

 

Dr. Galit Raguan

Attorney

Department of Special International Affairs

Office of the State Attorney

Ministry of Justice

State of Israel

Office: + 972 (0)3 763 4281 | Cell: +972 (0)50 611 7014

Fax: +972 (0)2 646 7799

GalitRa@justice.gov.il

 

---

This email is confidential and for the exclusive use of its addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.

 

 

 

From: J.I.M.G. Jahae [mailto:jahae@jahae.nl]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 11:30 AM
To: Shani lee Fisher; Talya Schein; 'Th.O.M. Dieben'; Marlene Mazel (marlene.mazel@gmail.com); Galit Raguan; Jurjan Geertsma; Vered Shpilman
Subject: Memo in pdf [D17056-3102115]

 

Dear all,

since you might encounter some problems receiving the memo we sent you earlier today in word-format , we are resending that same email of earlier today with the memo now as a pdf-attachment. 

Dear all,

due to the complexity of the issues you raised last Wednesday and the level of detail we wanted to address them with, it took us little bit longer than anticipated before we could finalise our memo. We hope however that you will find all the answers you were looking for in the attached memo.

If you have any further questions, don't hesitate and let us know. If you want to discuss the memo over the phone we are of course available to schedule a suitable date and time.

All the best

Han and Thom




 

Han Jahae Advocaat	T +31 20 435 25 25 F +31 20 435 25 26 M +31 6 53 13 26 55	E info@jahae.nl W www.jahae.nl
Dit bericht bevat vertrouwelijke informatie. Het is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien deze e-mail niet aan u is gericht, is het u niet toegestaan deze en de daarin opgenomen informatie te gebruiken, te kopiëren of te openbaren. Wij verzoeken u onmiddellijk contact met ons op te nemen en de e-mail en daarvan eventueel gemaakte afdrukken te vernietigen This communication contains information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee you must not use, copy or disclose the information contained in it. Please contact us immediately and delete the e-mail from your computer system and destroy any hard copies you may have made.