HCJ Clarifies Rules for Initiating Dismissal Proceedings Against Senior Officials

Dispute Over the Head of the Competition Authority

Economy Minister Nir Barkat asked that the question of dismissing Competition Authority head Michal Cohen be referred to the Appointments Committee. The former head of the Civil Service Commission, Daniel Hershkowitz, rejected the request without forwarding it to the committee, even though its review is a mandatory stage before a government decision. The Lavi organization challenged this refusal.

What the Expanded HCJ Panel Decided

The five justices unanimously ruled that the head of the Civil Service Commission was not authorized to reject the minister’s request at the initial stage and was required to forward it to the Appointments Committee. At the same time, the court held for the first time that, by virtue of its authority to determine its own working procedures, the committee may summarily reject a clearly unfounded request—without hearing the parties. The source does not state whether the government decided to dismiss Michal Cohen.

What Grounds Are Required for Dismissal

A majority of the justices agreed that “substantial and ongoing disagreements” cannot be established solely on the basis of a minister’s subjective assertion of loss of confidence or a divergence of views. The loss of confidence must be supported by an objective, solid, and detailed evidentiary basis showing that its reasons are connected to professional considerations. The court thereby limited the possibility of dismissing senior officials merely because of a personal or political conflict.

Disagreements Over the Attorney General’s Role

Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit and Justice Daphne Barak-Erez supported the position of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and her deputy, Gil Limon, noting that the expedited procedure proposed by the court had not previously been an established rule. Justices Noam Sohlberg and Alex Stein criticized the legal service for categorically presenting a disputed legal position as binding. Thus, the procedural outcome was unanimous, but the justices were divided in their assessment of the attorney general’s conduct.

Latest legal news

• Border Police officer gets four years for paid unchecked passage
• Teen charged with car theft released to alternative detention
• Court finds police surveillance through city cameras unlawful
• Gaza Division intelligence officer to appeal publication of his name