(-) Second, as to the state of the public service, as I have clarified above, I do not believe that this issue, in and of itself, leads to the imposition of an obligation on the government to appoint the commissioner in a competitive process.
(-) Third, with regard to the conduct of the current government, there is an inherent difficulty in changing the law for reasons of this kind.
- Therefore, I do not believe that the aforementioned considerations, which are detailed in the judgment that is the subject of the additional hearing, justify a deviation from the precedent set forth in the judgment in the High Court of Justice case 2699/11, [Nevo] According to which, as stated, With regard to the appointment of the commissioner, "it cannot be said that 'sufficiency' in such a committee [the Appointments Committee], which is beyond what is required by law, is unreasonable."
Conflict of interest
- My Friend, the Judge Barak-Erez, in the judgment that is the subject of the additional hearing, held that taking into account the Prime Minister's role in the appointing mechanism set out in Resolution 2344; And in view of the limitations that apply to his involvement in the appointment to positions in the field of law enforcement, due to the criminal law that is being conducted in his case, the said decision should be annulled, due to the rule regarding the prevention of conflict of interest.
However, it should be noted that the relief given in the judgment that is the subject of the additional hearing was not limited to the annulment of Resolution 2344, but rather concerned with obliging the government to conduct a competitive process for the appointment of the Commissioner. Further, even if I assume, for the sake of discussion only, that the Prime Minister is prevented from engaging in the selection of the Commissioner in view of the limitations that apply to his involvement in the appointment of officials in the law enforcement system, there is no rational connection between this alleged impediment and the relief that was granted. Since the very existence of a competitive process does not prevent the Prime Minister's involvement in the proceeding. If the argument was that Resolution 2344 should be annulled, since it would violate the conflict of interest arrangements that apply to the Prime Minister due to the criminal trial being conducted in his case, the remedy required would have been to prevent the Prime Minister's involvement in the process of appointing the Civil Service Commissioner, whatever the format of the proceeding. However, as stated, this is not the remedy given in our case. I do not, therefore, believe that this alleged impediment by the Prime Minister is sufficient to lead to the acceptance of the petitions in question, in the sense of obliging the government to conduct a competitive process for the appointment of the Commissioner - given that in such a proceeding as well, the government, including the Prime Minister, will have the final say, as stated In the section 6 to the law.