Israel's Supreme Court Halts Dismissal of Competition Authority Head

Israel's Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the dismissal of Michal Cohen, the head of the Competition Authority, by Economy Minister Nir Barkat. Supreme Court President Isaac Amit ruled that Barkat must first re-engage with the Civil Service Commissioner, Doron Cohen, who is tasked with reviewing such dismissals according to established legal procedures. The court also noted that the entire process is subject to restrictions applicable during election periods.

Barkat is required to provide factual evidence of a "severe crisis of confidence" between himself and Cohen. The ruling came after a rehearing by a five-judge panel concerning whether the Civil Service Commissioner, acting as chair of the appointments committee, can summarily reject a minister's request to dismiss a public official without presenting it to the committee. Previously, the then-Commissioner Daniel Hershkowitz had rejected Barkat's request, citing insufficient grounds for dismissal, a stance supported by the Attorney General.

The expanded court panel unanimously determined that the Commissioner cannot unilaterally reject a minister's request. However, if a minister's request lacks a prima facie cause or has a significant administrative flaw, the Commissioner can convene the committee for a brief preliminary review, akin to a "summary rejection." Crucially, the Commissioner must always convene the committee, even if only to dismiss the request outright.

Justice Amit stated this approach addresses concerns raised by the Attorney General regarding the potential misuse of dismissal procedures for senior public officials and the need to protect their independence. Justices Stein and Barak-Erez concurred, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the autonomy of officials responsible for law enforcement and regulation. Justice Kaabov agreed with the main points but added that in exceptional cases where a minister's authority is fundamentally challenged, the Commissioner might have discretion not to convene the committee, a view he held in the original ruling.

Justice Solberg, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the Commissioner alone lacks the authority to prevent the committee from convening and that the committee could expedite the process if the request was deemed frivolous. He also criticized the three-year delay in addressing Barkat's request, calling for lessons to be learned by the Attorney General's office and the courts regarding inter-branch cooperation. Justice Stein supported Solberg's remarks on this matter.

Regarding the "severe and ongoing crisis of confidence" cited by Barkat, Justices Amit, Barak-Erez, Stein, and Kaabov ruled that such a claim cannot rely solely on the minister's subjective feelings. It must be supported by objective, solid, and detailed evidence demonstrating that the loss of confidence stems from professional considerations. Justice Solberg abstained from this specific issue.