The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court addressed a dispute involving Shaul Sedka, who immigrated to Israel from London in 2016 with 1,130 ancient Jewish sacred books collected by his family over generations. The books were shipped by a freight forwarder but were placed in the container of another new immigrant, Daniel Zivli, without his knowledge. Upon arrival in Israel, Customs authorities suspected irregularities, forfeited the books, and transferred them to the National Library. Sedka was not notified of the forfeiture and only discovered the books’ location after conducting his own investigation. His requests to the National Library for information about the books were denied or delayed, with the Library citing ongoing cataloguing or limitations under the Freedom of Information Law.
Sedka filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the books or, alternatively, monetary compensation. The State argued that Sedka was not the owner, that the forfeiture and seizure were lawful, and that the statutory period for filing a claim had expired. During the proceedings, the State ultimately agreed to return 966 books that had been received by the National Library, and this agreement was given the force of a partial judgment. However, the National Library maintained its position that the books had been lawfully transferred to it and that it was not obligated to return them.
The Library raised several arguments: that Sedka had not proven ownership; that other parties might claim ownership; that ownership had lawfully passed to the State under the Customs Ordinance and was transferred to the Library free of any other rights; and that the transfer to the Library was irreversible. The Library also claimed that the books constituted “cultural property” or “archival material,” and that the public’s right to their preservation in the National Library should take precedence over Sedka’s property rights. Additionally, the Library argued that its investment in maintaining, disinfecting, cataloguing, and storing the books constituted sufficient consideration for the transfer of ownership, even if no direct payment was made. The Library further contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the removal of items from the National Library, as a “public archive,” without the approval of the State Archivist.
The court found Sedka’s testimony and documentation credible and ruled that he had proven his ownership of the books. It held that the Library’s expenses for maintenance and cataloguing did not constitute legal consideration under the Sale Law, and that the conditions for transfer of ownership were not met. The court further held that the fact that the books had already been transferred to the Library did not create a situation that would override property rights. The Library failed to prove that the books were “cultural property” or “archival material” under the law, or that such status would justify denying the owner’s rights. The claim regarding the court’s lack of jurisdiction was also rejected, as it was raised for the first time in the closing arguments and was not proven.
The court ordered the National Library to return all books in its possession to Sedka and to pay legal costs and court fees. The claim for compensation for missing books was denied due to insufficient proof of value.
The content in this update is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to be comprehensive. It does not serve to replace professional legal advice required on a case by case basis.
Key Contact
