Israeli Supreme Court Justices Clash Over Handling of Competition Authority Head's Dismissal

Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg sharply criticized the Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, and her deputy, Gil Limon, for their handling of a request to dismiss Michal Cohen, the head of the Israel Competition Authority. Sohlberg alleged that the State Commissioner for Civil Service was presented with a "flawed legal picture." The controversy stems from a January 2024 request by the Economy Minister to review Cohen's tenure, citing a severe and ongoing trust crisis. Cohen, however, denied the allegations, claiming the minister and his director-general attempted to interfere with her independent decisions.

The State Commissioner initially refused to convene a review committee, relying on a legal opinion that deemed the dismissal grounds insufficient. Following a petition by the Lavie organization, the Supreme Court ordered the committee's convening in July 2025. The implementation was delayed, and the matter was reviewed by an expanded panel of five justices. The court ruled that the commissioner could not unilaterally block the minister's request based on a lack of grounds for dismissal, stating the committee itself held the authority to review and potentially reject the request, even summarily.

Justice Sohlberg contended that the Attorney General's office was behind the commissioner's refusal, asserting that the commissioner was told it was forbidden to convene the committee, despite a legal obligation to do so. He also criticized the prolonged delay in processing the request, noting the minister waited months for a response, followed by a nearly two-year legal process, leaving the request unaddressed by the end of the government's term. Justice Alex Stein concurred with Sohlberg's criticism of the legal advice.

Conversely, Justice Yitzhak Amit defended the Attorney General's office, stating he did not share the critical views of his colleagues. He explained that the case presented unprecedented legal questions and that the Attorney General's position, though ultimately not adopted by the court, was based on weighty legal reasoning. Amit also expressed concern that initiating dismissal proceedings could exert undue pressure on officials requiring independent judgment.

Justices Daphne Barak-Erez and Khaled Kabub sided with Amit's remarks regarding the legal advice. A majority of the justices also ruled that a minister's abstract declaration of lost trust is insufficient; justifying termination requires factual evidence of a severe, ongoing professional crisis hindering effective functioning. Sohlberg, however, felt this question was not for the court to decide at this stage. The order delaying the previous ruling was lifted, but further proceedings are subject to election period restrictions. The court also stipulated that if the request is resubmitted, an updated legal opinion considering the elapsed time would be necessary.