This request of mine was rejected by the minister" [bottom line in original, emphases added - 10].
- In his response to the issue at hand, the Minister of Communications clarifies that "indeed, the Minister of Communications called on all the members of the outgoing council to resign from their positions" and that "some of the council members spoke with the minister's chief of staff, who expressed to them the minister's position on the issue." However, the minister emphasizes that he has no way of influencing the decision of a council member to resign.
- The other members of the "outgoing" council who resigned emphasize in their response that "contrary to the petitioners' unfounded libels, which are based on journalistic headlines, no coercion was exerted on them whatsoever, and that their considerations were purely pertinent, professional and ethical."
In light of the discrepancy that arose on the surface between the various versions presented regarding the minister's involvement in the resignation decisions, on June 14,2026, we instructed the other members of the Council "Outgoing" To submit additional supplementary affidavits in which they were asked to detail the inquiries they had received, to the extent they were received, from the Minister or anyone on his behalf on the matter.
- Further to our decision, the other members of the "outgoing" council who resigned noted that in their affidavits they explicitly stated that "the minister's position was brought to their attention. It is hereby clarified that the minister's position was brought to their attention by the minister's chief of staff. In any event, there is no gap on the factual level between the various versions, contrary to what is implied in the decision of June 14,2026." It should be noted that despite our decision, this reference was not backed up by supplementary affidavits on behalf of the various council members. In any event, from this reference we learn of the direct involvement of the Chief of Staff of the Minister in their resignation, a fact that was not mentioned in their first comment.
Hearing on the Status of the Parties and the Interim Order
- On June 16,2026, we held a hearing in the presence of the parties, during which we were informed by counsel for the Attorney General that two days earlier, on June 14,2026, the Minister of Communications had ordered the dismissal of Ms. Bahloul from her position on the "outgoing" Council.
- In response to the petitioners' argument that the Prime Minister's conflict of interest arrangement sweepingly prohibits him from dealing with issues relating to the regulation of the communications market, we granted the government's request to submit previous correspondence between the Legal Advisor to the Government and the Legal Counsel and the Ministry of Communications. According to the Government, these correspondences show that the arrangement does not establish a sweeping prohibition as stated. Moreover, and following the petitioners' arguments regarding the Prime Minister's involvement in government decisions, we granted the government's request to submit the two stenograms of government meetings.
- Subsequently, on June 17,2026, an interim order was issued in the proceeding freezing the government's decisions. In the meantime, we instructed that until another decision is made, the "outgoing" council in its current composition will continue to serve in accordance with the provisions of section 8(b) of the Second Authority Law, with all that this entails (hereinafter: the interim order decision). In addition, and with regard to the arguments raised regarding the consequences of the resignations of the various "outgoing" council members , we determined in the interim order decision as follows:
"A review of the minister's affidavits and the affidavits of the resigning council members [Dr. Raviv, Mr. Assi, Mr. Shimoni, Prof. Caspi, Ms. Kedem Maktovi and Dr. Wenig] raises a serious suspicion that their resignation was intended only to thwart previous decisions made by us in the present proceeding, while disrupting the ability of this court to clarify all the arguments at hand. This is to be done, inter alia, taking into account the picture that emerges regarding the involvement of the minister or anyone on his behalf in the dismissal decisions, while addressing the resigning council members; the proximity of the time is puzzling between the resignation decisions between themselves and themselves, and between them and the minister's inquiries and the court's decisions; and the fact that most of the council members who resign chose to resign only from the 'outgoing' council, insisting on their desire to serve on the 'incoming' council. All of this, in a manner that on the face of it is inconsistent with the duty of loyalty imposed on a council member (section 13 of the Second Authority Law).