Supreme Court Faces Delays and Case Filtering Amidst Judicial Shortage

Israel's Supreme Court is grappling with significant delays and an increased tendency to filter cases due to a shortage of judges and a surge in caseload. The court currently operates with 11 judges, a 27% deficit from its full complement of 15. This reduction in judicial capacity coincides with a rise in petitions, primarily driven by government actions prompting legal challenges and an increase in administrative detention appeals from the West Bank.

The combination of fewer judges and more cases inevitably leads to two consequences: procedural delays and case filtering. The backlog is evident, with the average wait time for a civil appeal judgment reaching 23.2 months in 2024, a stark increase from previous years. This delay is particularly pronounced in civil cases, which are deemed less urgent as they primarily involve financial matters rather than civil rights or criminal penalties.

Filtering is also becoming more apparent, with a growing number of appeals and petitions being rejected outright. Additionally, the court is increasingly encouraging parties to reach settlements or withdraw their cases. A recent example highlighted this trend when the Supreme Court did not delve into a case with potentially broad implications, seemingly due to a lack of judicial time.

This case involved Maccabi Bnei Raina, an association that appealed a district court's decision to award lawyer Shlomo Nes approximately 916,000 shekels for managing its finances over two years. The association argued the calculation basis was flawed and the sum excessive, a position supported by the Registrar of Associations and the Official Receiver. However, the Supreme Court justices brokered a compromise, with Nes receiving an additional 139,000 shekels. The article suggests the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to set a precedent on how to calculate the fees for officials in associations, especially when the sum could financially cripple the organization and regulatory bodies support the association's stance.

The article attributes the judicial shortage and subsequent strain on the court to political deadlock, specifically mentioning Justice Minister Yariv Levin's refusal to fill judicial vacancies and his insistence on selecting his own candidates. The author concludes that the public, in need of the court's services, is ultimately bearing the cost of these political disputes and the government's actions that lead to frequent legal challenges.