Court ruling9/9/2026

High Court of Justice Limited the Civil Service Commissioner’s Role in Dismissing Senior Officials

An expanded panel of the High Court of Justice ruled that the Civil Service Commissioner may not unilaterally block consideration of the Economy Minister’s request to terminate the tenure of Competition Commissioner Michal Cohen. However, the Court did not rule that Cohen should be dismissed and did not consider the merits of the allegations against her.

Key facts

•Court: High Court of Justice, expanded panel
•Five justices supported the decision
•Minister’s request: January 2024
•First High Court of Justice decision: July 2025
•Cohen’s term: six years beginning in January 2022
•The case number and date of the new decision are not specified in the source

The Reason for the Dispute

Michal Cohen was appointed Competition Commissioner in January 2022 for a six-year term. After the Economy Minister took office, relations between them deteriorated: Cohen claimed that the minister and the ministry’s director general had attempted to intervene in matters within her authority. In January 2024, the minister asked the then Civil Service Commissioner, Professor Daniel Hershkowitz, to convene the Appointments Committee, alleging clear and ongoing unsuitability for the position and a profound crisis of confidence.

How the Matter Reached the High Court of Justice

The Appointments Committee was not convened. In August 2024, after several months of review, the commissioner informed the minister that he would not refer the request to the committee. The minister filed a petition with the High Court of Justice, and in July 2025 the Court ruled that the commissioner could not halt the process unilaterally.

What the Expanded Panel Ruled

The Attorney General, the Civil Service Commissioner and the Appointments Committee requested a further hearing before an expanded panel. Five justices rejected their position and again ruled that the Appointments Committee must consider the matter, although it may decide at the outset that there are no grounds to continue the process. Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit noted that the circumstances of Cohen’s case did not justify refraining from convening the committee.

Implications of the Decision

Deputy President of the Supreme Court Noam Sohlberg criticized the legal position presented to the commissioner, calling it erroneous and noting that all six justices who participated in the initial hearing and the further hearing believed that the law was closer to the minister’s position. The Court lifted the order that had frozen further consideration. However, because of the election period, the continuation of the process must be conducted in accordance with the special rules applicable during this period.

What this means for you

The decision defines the division of authority among state bodies: the Civil Service Commissioner may not replace the Appointments Committee and conclusively block the referral of a matter to it. For civil servants, this means that a demand to dismiss them must undergo the prescribed collegial process, but referring the matter to the committee does not in itself mean dismissal.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings