It is true that the individual proceeding before us bore to a large extent the burden involved in clarifying those questions of principle and in shaping a forward-looking rule. However, this is, by the very nature of things, the fate of precedential proceedings: the decision on them not only serves the concrete proceeding, but also paves the way for future proceedings that will follow them. Now that the normative framework has become clear, it can be expected that future proceedings, whatever they may be, will be conducted with the appropriate efficiency and speed, while recognizing that the very conduct of a proceeding for termination of office has an impact on the status and functioning of the officer, and therefore requires a speedy decision. For this reason, as already noted, it is also appropriate that the principles set forth in this judgment be anchored in an appropriate administrative directive.
- In conclusion, on the practical level, if my opinion is heard, it will be decided as detailed in paragraph 83 above. Accordingly, the temporary order given in my decision of September 14,2025 will be revoked. Taking into account the fact that the filing of the additional hearing made a significant contribution to the sharpening of the law, I will suggest that no order be made for costs.
Not yet signed
- After these remarks, I was presented with the opinion of my colleague, the Vice-President Solberg.
Although my colleague agrees with Shurat HaDin in my judgment, he adds that we should not address the additional issues that I have addressed. However, for his own part, my colleague would rather add a few comments on the subject of legal advice to the government, which are spread over 9 pages. Therefore, I too will say a few words on the subject.
- I will clarify that I do not share my colleague's criticism of the conduct of the legal advisor to the government (A subject that has been addressed more than once, as he himself noted in paragraph 13 of his opinion). As my friend the judge tasted Barak-ErezAlthough the conclusion we reached differs from the position of the Legal Counsel to the Government, we should not ignore the fact that this position relied on weighty legal reasons - reasons which, as explained in my judgment, were not fully addressed in the judgment that is the subject of the additional hearing, and in any case not in the arguments of Minister of Economy and Lavie. This is also to be said in view of the precedent-setting nature of the proceeding at hand and the fact that the relevant normative framework has not yet been fully and comprehensively clarified.
Accordingly, and as I noted above, there was no flaw in the submission of the motion for an additional hearing. As evidence, the result that I reached - a result that none of my colleague the Vice-President disagreed with - includes at the end of the day a substantial and significant addition to the judgment that is the subject of the additional hearing. On the practical level, the issue to which the discussion before us was convened is who has the authority to demand a "rejection" out of hand at the Minister's request - the Civil Service Commissioner himself or the Appointments Committee as a whole. This question would not have been clarified had it not been for the additional discussion. This makes a real contribution to the development of the law with a forward-looking view. In my opinion, it would be wise in retrospect to present the conclusion we reached as a self-evident solution, in the sense of "the true law, " in the words of my colleague.
- It is not superfluous to add that the question of the relationship between the boundaries of a committee's authority and the powers of the chairman is not as simple as my colleague presents it. Thus, for example, for the sake of comparison, I will note that על פי Section 7A Basic Law: The Knesset and according to Articles 63 and63A of the Knesset Elections Law [Consolidated Version], 5729-1969, the authority to disqualify a list of candidates or a candidate for the Knesset Submitted to the Central Elections Committee. However, despite the fact that this is a very sensitive issue of the realization of the basic right to vote and to be elected, Section 7 of the "Procedure for Handling Disqualification Applications under Section 7A of the Basic Law: The Knesset, 5786-2026" - as recently validated by my colleague in his capacity as Chairman of the Central Elections Committee - states that "Committee Chair may reject an application out of hand, if he finds that it does not disclose grounds in law" (similarly, see also section 7 of the procedure for handling requests for disqualification under Section 6A to the Basic Law: The Knesset, 5786-2026, which is also in force recently. For past examples of the use of this power, see my decisions inPublication Ban 1/25 The Civil Commission of Inquiry - Adat Ha'am Ltd. v. Likud List [Nevo] (21.9.2022); Publication Ban 2/25 The Opinion of Good and Evil and the Covenant of the Tribe of Abraham - A Green Leaf and the Prohibition of Islam v. Likud List [Nevo] (September 29,2022)). Thus, even though this is an explicit provision in the Basic Law and the Law, and not a government decision, as in the case at hand, the procedure and practice is that the Chairman of the Central Elections Committee may reject a request to disqualify a list or a candidate without forwarding the request to the Central Elections Committee. Our eyes see that things are not as clear as they seem to be at first glance.
In this context, I will add that just in the last few days, a petition was filed, which also revolved, inter alia, about the division of powers between the Central Elections Committee and the Chairman of the Committee (High Court of Justice 60697-08-26 Likud faction - Liberal National Movement vs. Chairman of the Central Elections Committee for the 26th Knesset) [Nevo]. It should be noted that in this matter, it is precisely the position of the Legal Advisor that was supported from the outset by the principled position that the examination of the issue under discussion should be decided by the Central Elections Committee. However, after the decision of my colleague who determined that the authority in the matter was vested in him as the chairman of the committee, the Legal Advisor chose to defend the decision that was given. The proceeding in this matter is still pending and I will not be required to do so, but on September 3,2026, it was agreed that the issue would be brought to a decision Plenum Central Elections Committee, and that my colleague's decision will constitute a legal opinion on his behalf that will be addressed to the Committee. I emphasize that I do not take any position with regard to the body of the said issue. This is brought only in order to illustrate the legal complexities involved in deciding the question of the relationship between the powers of the chairman and the powers of a committee that he chairs, as in the case before us (for the complete picture, see and compare in this context also Election Appeal 6615/22 Shikli v. Chairman of the Central Elections Committee for the 25th Knesset [Nevo] (3.11.2022) - where the validity of a decision I made during my tenure as chairman of the Elections Committee was discussed, and it was determined that the authority rests with the committee and not with the chairman).