ISRAEL Law and Practice Contributed by: Talya Solomon, Iris Achmon, Ekaterina Yaremchuk and Niva Orion, Herzog Fox & Neeman
Administration) Law 1997 and the State Comp - troller Law 1958 (Consolidated Version) provide protection for employees who report illegal con - duct – and in the public sector, also for report - ing violations of ethical conduct against harm to their employment conditions. The exposure of cartels is not explicitly men - tioned in the law but may be addressed within the broader context of illegal conduct. Accordingly, an employee who reports cartel offences in their workplace may be entitled to protection under the law, provided that the com - plaint was made in good faith and was submit - ted to the appropriate authority. There are lawyers with expertise in whistle-blow - ers’ protection, and some non-profits also assist them. 4. Procedural Framework for Cartel Enforcement 4.1 Obtaining Evidence From Employees Obtaining Information From Employees In criminal cases, the ICA can seek information directly from companies′ employees using dif - ferent provisions in the criminal law system, such as searching the company and the employees’ premises (with a search warrant) and summon - ing and interrogating the employees. In Administrative Procedures The ICA′s main tool to gather such information is the authority set forth in Section 46 (b) of the ECL, which grants the ICA the authority to seek information from “any person” that would ensure or facilitate the implementation of the law. The usual practice with regard to Section 46 (b) is that the ICA obtains the information from the
company and not directly from its employees. In September 2023, the ICA published Public Statement 3/23: Receipt of Information by the ICA and Disclosure thereof to Parties who Did not Provide the Information ( “Public Opinion 3/23” ). According to Public Opinion 3/23, the RFI will usually be addressed to the company and its CEO, who will be responsible for the company’s response. However, in certain cases the RFI may be addressed directly to entities in the company other than the CEO. 4.2 Obtaining Documentary Evidence From Subject/Target Companies See 4.1 Obtaining Evidence From Employees . 4.3 Obtaining Evidence From Entities Outside the Jurisdiction The ICA argues that it is authorised to obtain evidence from foreign entities. In the matter of 10bis.co.il the Israeli Supreme Court, in its role as High Court of Justice, reject - ed a petition filed by a local company against the ICA and ruled that the obligation to respond to requests for information applies either to infor - mation in the local company’s possession, or to information that can be obtained by reasonable efforts, even if the information relates to the for - eign parent company. In the matter of Leadiant Biosciences Ltd., a consent decree was reached between the Competition Commissioner and a foreign com - pany with no presence in Israel. The company agreed to pay a nominal fee (ILS110,000) to the Israeli State Treasury, after failing to respond to a request for information. The foreign company did not admit liability. The ICA’s position is that since the Competition Tribunal approved the consent decree and gave it the force of a court order, the ICA is authorised to issue requests
169 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook