Rights9/18/2026

Opinion: When May the Authorities Dismiss Senior Civil Servants?

The column’s author, Gil Bringer, analyzes the High Court of Justice’s decision concerning the dismissal of the Director-General of the Israel Competition Authority, Michal Cohen. In his assessment, the Court restricted the government’s ability to remove senior officials, even though it denied the Civil Service Commissioner the authority to block discussion of such initiatives.

Key facts

•Body: The Supreme Court of Israel sitting as the High Court of Justice
•Officeholder: Michal Cohen
•Proceeding: Further hearing
•Column publication: September 18, 2026
•The case number and exact date of the decision are not specified
•There are no shekel sums

The Dispute Over Michal Cohen’s Dismissal

The government sought to terminate the tenure of the Director-General of the Israel Competition Authority, Michal Cohen, but the dismissal was halted. In a further hearing, the Supreme Court of Israel determined how such an initiative should be examined. The case number and the exact date of the decision are not specified in the source.

The Conditions Established by the Court

According to the author, the Civil Service Commissioner may no longer prevent the very discussion of a minister’s request to dismiss a senior official. However, dismissal requires an objective crisis of confidence and compelling reasons. The Court also pointed to a significant accumulation of serious incidents over a prolonged period and impairment of the body’s efficient and proper functioning.

Why the Author Criticizes This Approach

Bringer believes that the criteria established are vague and that they grant the courts broad powers when reviewing dismissals. In his view, this weakens the accountability of the elected government: the public evaluates ministers’ performance, but ministers cannot always replace the heads of the bodies through which policy is implemented. This is the column author’s position, not a separate conclusion expressly formulated by the Court.

Comparison With the United States

The column compares the decision with the dispute surrounding President Donald Trump’s dismissal of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter. According to the author’s account, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it was sufficient that her continued tenure was inconsistent with the administration’s priorities because the Commission exercises executive powers. Bringer contrasts this approach with the Israeli model, which requires additional grounds for dismissal.

What this means for you

For heads of government bodies, the decision, as presented in the column, means increased protection against dismissals arising solely from disagreements with the minister. For citizens, this may affect the balance between public officials’ professional independence and the government’s responsibility to implement policy. Application of the criteria will depend on the circumstances of each specific dismissal case.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings