Israeli Supreme Court Justices Clash Over Legal Advice in Dismissal Case

Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg sharply criticized the Attorney General's Office for allegedly providing incorrect legal guidance in the case of a bid to dismiss Michal Cohen, the Director-General of the Israel Competition Authority. In a ruling, Sohlberg stated that the Civil Service Commissioner was presented with a "flawed legal picture" and urged the legal counsel to "adhere to the law as it is, and not sail to other realms."

Supreme Court President Isaac Amit rejected Sohlberg's criticism and defended the Attorney General's Office. The core issue involved whether the Civil Service Commissioner could refuse to convene a committee to discuss the Economy and Industry Minister's request to end Cohen's tenure. The court ruled that the commissioner is not authorized to unilaterally reject the request based on a conclusion that it lacks grounds for dismissal.

The case began in January 2024 when the minister sought to convene the committee, citing a severe and ongoing crisis of confidence. Cohen rejected these claims, alleging the minister and his office director attempted to interfere with her independent discretion. The minister countered that there was no basis for accusations of improper pressure.

In August 2024, the commissioner announced there were no legal grounds to convene the committee. Following a petition by the Lavie organization, the Supreme Court ordered the committee to convene in July 2025, in a majority decision. A request for an additional hearing was later filed, delaying the ruling's execution.

Sohlberg argued that the decision not to convene the committee was effectively made by the Attorney General's Office, which he claimed misled the commissioner into believing it was legally prohibited from convening the committee, when the legal conclusion should have been that he must convene it. He warned that preventing a legally permitted action by an elected official undermines the rule of law and democratic values, and could also harm the standing of the legal counsel. Sohlberg also criticized the prolonged proceedings, noting that after months of review and two years of deliberation, the minister's request had still not been substantively addressed.

Justice Alex Stein joined Sohlberg's remarks regarding the Attorney General's Office's conduct. Amit responded directly, stating he did not share the criticism, asserting that the rejected position was based on weighty legal grounds and that the additional hearing clarified the law. Justices Daphne Barak-Erez and Khaled Kabub joined Amit's remarks. Amit further clarified that a claim of a crisis of confidence justifying dismissal must be based on facts and professional reasons, not the minister's personal feelings.

Sohlberg believed it was not the place to rule on the interpretation of the grounds for dismissal at this stage, before the committee had deliberated. Practically, an interim order delaying the previous ruling's execution was canceled, but it was emphasized that advancing the dismissal process is subject to election period rules. It was also determined that if and when the request is brought before the commissioner, an updated legal opinion should be provided, considering the time elapsed.