The Commissioner went on to write in relation to the Minister's claims of the existence of a cause for a severe and ongoing crisis of confidence as follows:
"Insofar as the disagreements between the Minister and the Director of the Authority relate to individual enforcement within the framework of its powers and not to general policy, and the Director-General's refusal to act relate to significant legal difficulties in relation to the Minister's requests. In these circumstances, the disagreements cannot constitute grounds for termination of office [...] Moreover, the crisis should not only be acute, but should lead to a situation in which the Authority's efficient and proper functioning is prevented. Your letter does not indicate that the Competition Authority is currently not operating in an efficient and proper manner" (ibid., at paragraphs 15-16).
- At this stage, the petition was amended and two remedies were requested - that the Commissioner's decision of August 12,2024 be revoked, and that the Appointments Committee convene immediately in order to discuss the Minister's request. It should be noted that in the amended petition, it was argued, inter alia, that Resolution 4062 authorizes the committee As a whole And not the Commissioner Alone to discuss the Minister's request; that the Commissioner's refusal to forward the Minister's request for examination by the Committee has emptied the proceedings before the Committee; that the interpretation adopted by the Commissioner violates the balance between the elected echelon and the clerical echelon, and thus interferes with the mechanism that the Government set for itself in Resolution 4062; and that an excessively high threshold was set for the very convening of the Committee, which is a very preliminary stage in the process of termination of office.
- On the other hand, the State's respondents were of the opinion that the petition should be dismissed. It was argued, in essence, that in view of the importance of maintaining the independence of senior officers in the public service; and in view of the fact that the very opening of a process for termination of office creates a "chilling effect", the Commissioner has discretion to decide whether to convene the committee in order to discuss the Minister's request. The State's respondents argued that the source of the Commissioner's authority is found, inter alia, in Resolution 4062, which stipulates that the Civil Service Commission will coordinate the Committee's activities. It was further argued that Section 3.D of the Commissioner's Directive (Section 4.D of the updated Directive), which regulates the procedure for obtaining a legal opinion in the framework of the appointment process, serves as a normative source for the existence of a preliminary examination process by the Legal Advisor to the Government prior to convening the Committee for the purpose of termination of office. Therefore, it was argued that the Commissioner has the authority not to convene the Committee insofar as he finds that the Minister's application does not establish a factual basis, even prima facie, for the termination of the office of the officer, as indeed is found in the circumstances of the present case.
It should be noted that the Minister supported the acceptance of the petition but did not request separate representation in the proceeding that is the subject of the additional hearing, and therefore his position was brought before the Court from time to time by means of "letters" that were attached to the pleadings on behalf of the State's respondents.
- On February 3,2025, the first hearing of the petition was held, at the end of which an order nisi was issued as follows:
"1. An order nisi is hereby issued to Respondent 1, the Civil Service Commissioner, instructing him to come and give a reason why he does not convene the Appointments Committee, which operates by virtue of Government Resolutions 516 and 4892, in order to examine the justification of the claim of Respondent No. 2, the Minister of Economy and Industry, regarding a severe lack of trust between him and Respondent No. 5, the Commissioner of Economic Competition, as grounds for terminating her term of office - a claim detailed in the Minister's letter of January 28,2024.
- It is hereby clarified that this order is limited to examining the Minister's claim regarding such a severe lack of confidence. We did not see fit to grant an order nisi in the context of additional claims raised by the Minister as a criticism of the Supervisor's actions."
Thus, the order nisi issued within the framework of the proceeding was limited to the question of the non-convening of the Appointments Committee, but in relation to the ground for termination of term, which concerns a severe and ongoing crisis of confidence, without including the arguments relating to the cause of incompatibility. Subsequently, on May 21,2025, a hearing was held on the objection to turning the order nisi into an absolute order, and on July 28,2025, the judgment that is the subject of the motion for further hearing was issued.