Supreme Court Limits Official Firings, Citing Need for Objective Cause

Israel's Supreme Court, in an expanded five-justice panel ruling, has set boundaries on the dismissal of senior officials, while also placing restrictions on gatekeeping bodies. The decision stemmed from a request by Economy Minister Nir Barkat to dismiss the Director General of the Israel Competition Authority, Michal Cohen.

The court unanimously determined that the Civil Service Commissioner, and by extension the legal counsel's office, was not authorized to summarily reject the minister's request without referring it to the Appointments Committee. This committee is the designated body for considering such dismissals.

However, the ruling also introduced a new legal precedent, allowing the Appointments Committee to expedite the dismissal process by summarily rejecting a minister's request without a full hearing, provided the request is deemed baseless. This aspect of the decision was met with a sharp dissent from Justice Noam Sohlberg, who criticized the Attorney General's office for allegedly acting with bias and failing to present the law accurately to the government.

Sohlberg argued that the legal counsel should not presume political figures act with nefarious motives, suggesting that ministers might genuinely believe an official hinders public interest. He cautioned against basing decisions solely on the assumption of negative intent from elected officials, noting that the current dynamic between politicians and senior civil servants could shift in future governments.

Conversely, President Yitzhak Amit and Justice Daphne Barak-Erez supported the Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, and her deputy, Gil Limon. They contended that the legal counsel's office cannot adopt the approach Sohlberg advocates, which allows for greater political maneuvering when the legal situation is unclear. The majority opinion reinforced that grounds for dismissal, such as "significant and prolonged disagreements," cannot be subjective, requiring objective, evidence-based justification rather than a minister's mere loss of confidence.