In any event, it should be noted that the aforesaid statements do not exhaust the entire discussion of the fundamental issues relating to the cause of the crisis of confidence. Naturally, additional questions that may arise regarding the interpretation of this ground should be clarified in future proceedings.
From the general to the individual
- Once we have clarified the definitions of the rules governing the fundamental issues that have arisen before us, we will proceed to examine them against the background of the circumstances of the concrete case before us.
- In our case, the application of the above analysis to the sequence of events before us shows that the Commissioner alone was not in a position to prevent the convening of the Committee and thereby block the Minister's request (and it should be clarified that I do not believe that we are dealing with one of those distant extreme cases as stated in paragraph 59, in relation to which I have left the question of whether, in these circumstances, the Commissioner was required to convene the Committee). At the same time, and as explained above, this does not lead to the conclusion that the Commissioner was necessarily obligated to convene the Committee in order to hold a "full" discussion of the Minister's arguments. This is in view of the possibility of convening the Committee in the deliberative format of the summary proceeding, a possibility that I discussed above. This is all the more reinforcing in view of the difficulties pointed out by the Legal Advisor to the Government in all matters relating to the Minister's request, as well as in view of the Director-General's claims of additional flaws in the Minister's conduct that raise concerns about abuse of the termination process (see also paragraphs 44-46 of the judge's judgment Kabub in the proceeding that is the subject of further hearing).
- On the practical level, this means that in the usual case, it would have been appropriate to return the Minister's request for the examination of the Civil Service Commissioner, in order for him to act in accordance with the boundaries of his authority, this time to the new Civil Service Commissioner, Mr. Doron Cohen, who in the meantime has replaced Prof. Daniel Hershkovitz in the position. At the same time, in the circumstances of the case, there is Take into account the limitations that arise from the fact that on the 17th day7.2026 The 25th Knesset was dissolved and we have entered an election period. Therefore, at this stage, it is clear that the promotion of the termination process is subject to the rules that apply during an election period (see, for example, Section 2.c of the Attorney General's Directive 1.1501 "Appointments during an election period" (January 2021); compare: High Court of Justice 5403/22 Lavi, Civil Rights, Proper Administration and Encouragement of Settlement v. Prime Minister [Nevo] (22.9.2022)). To this, it should be added that in any event, if and when the application is brought before the Commissioner, it is appropriate that, taking into account the passage of time, an up-to-date legal opinion be presented to him in order to choose the appropriate course of action in the circumstances of the case.
Conclusion
- Before concluding, I would like to say a few things regarding the continuation of the legal proceedings that are the focus of our case.
There is no dispute that a long time has passed since the Minister's request was submitted until the final judgment in the matter. However, this fact lies to a large extent at the door of the precedential nature of the proceeding before us, which revolves around legal issues that have not yet received sufficient clarification. As was argued before us, this is the first case in which the Commissioner was asked to order the convening of the Appointments Committee for the purpose of discussing the termination of the term of office of an officer during his fixed term of office. In these circumstances, it is therefore not surprising that the proceeding at hand must for the first time clarify questions of principle with respect to the scope of the powers of the various entities and the criteria in light of which they are required to act. It is not for nothing that even the Civil Service Commissioner's directive has so far regulated the work of the committee in appointment proceedings only, and does not relate to termination proceedings.