It was also written on the same subject:
"The fear of the penetration of political considerations - which was presented at length above - is even more true when we are dealing with the areas of criminal investigation. The possibility that a decision regarding the opening of a criminal investigation and the use of the abusive governmental powers involved in it will be made for reasons other than matters or professionalism constitutes a violation of the core legitimacy of the criminal investigation itself; and it may also have implications for the legitimacy of all the other links in the chain of law enforcement, including the decision to prosecute and the conviction of the criminal offense and the serving of the sentence. Accordingly, the Attorney General argued that there is room to create a 'buffer' - a hermetic separation - between the ministerial echelon and the law enforcement system as a whole" (ibid., at paragraph 179).
00 This is true - even if with the necessary changes - with respect to other officials who are part of the law enforcement agencies, including the Competition Commissioner.
0
- Against this background, weight should be attributed to the concerns raised by the Applicants regarding the consequences that may be caused to the activity of senior officers of the type we are dealing with, in the absence of appropriate audit mechanisms. In this regard, I accept the argument that the very opening of a term of office proceeding is sufficient to raise a concern of a possible impact on the officer, even if, at the end of the day, his term will not be terminated in practice. In this regard, consideration must be given to the immediate consequences deriving from the very opening of a termination of term of office proceeding, which by its nature involves the creation of a black cloud hanging over the officer's head, while harming his name and status. To this must be added the practical aspects derived from the opening of such a proceeding, including the need to seek the assistance of private legal counsel; and the resources, time and attention that the officer is required to turn to the management of the proceeding, which certainly comes at the expense of his other obligations in the framework of his position. In this sense, and even if the government ultimately decides to reject the minister's request for termination, it can be said that the damage has already been done. In this regard, I will turn to the things that I had the opportunity to write about the implications that this will have on the public service:
"No less important than the issue of appointments is the issue of dismissal. One can only imagine what the public service would look like if the officials knew that any independent decision of theirs, which the minister does not like, could lead to their dismissal. And if at the time of appointment it is possible to prove the existence of an extraneous consideration, then in a decision on dismissal it is much more complicated, since a minister who decides to dismiss a clerk will not declare that it was done due to extraneous considerations, and will make an effort to base his decision on alleged failures of one kind or another that occurred in the clerk's work" (HCJ 5658/23 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. Knesset, para. 94 of the [Nevo] judgment (January 1,2024); cf. also High Court of Justice 5474/23 Israel Postal Company Ltd. v. Sher Media, paragraph 10 of the [Nevo] judgment (March 7,2024)).