In a further hearing before an expanded panel of five justices, the Supreme Court adjudicated fundamental legal issues concerning the termination of senior civil service officials. The proceedings stem from Minister of Economy Nir Barkat's request to dismiss Competition Commissioner Michal Cohen before the conclusion of her original term. The Minister's request was predicated, among other factors, on an alleged deep and ongoing crisis of trust between himself and the Commissioner.
The Civil Service Commissioner had previously refused to convene the Appointments Committee, arguing that no prima facie factual basis justifying the move had been presented. As reported by 'Maariv', the core legal question addressed by the High Court concerned the Commissioner's authority to dismiss a minister's request outright without presenting it to the relevant committee. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that where a minister’s request reveals no prima facie cause or contains a manifest administrative defect, the Commissioner may order a brief preliminary procedural review by the committee—a form of summary rejection without the necessity of oral testimony from the parties.
This change provides the Commissioner with management tools while clarifying that they do not possess blanket authority to unilaterally refuse to convene the committee. During the proceedings, Justice Noam Sohlberg expressed criticism regarding the conduct of the Attorney General's office in this matter, while Chief Justice Isaac Amit emphasized that given the unprecedented nature of the process, the caution exercised was appropriate. The Court also interpreted the term 'crisis of trust' as a ground for dismissal, a subject that remains at the heart of the dispute between political and professional levels.
Legal experts assess that this ruling sets a higher bar for elected officials seeking to dismiss senior personnel, requiring the presentation of professional evidence and substantial factual weight to substantiate such claims. The practical implication for the public is that a 'crisis of trust' does not constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal without adequate documentation, and such procedures will remain under strict judicial oversight, balancing ministerial authority with the protection of professional civil service roles.