Background
In January 2022, the government appointed attorney Michal Cohen as Commissioner of Competition—the head of the Israel Competition Authority—for a single six-year term. Government decisions governing senior civil-service positions permit early termination only on specified grounds and upon a recommendation from the Civil Service Appointments Committee. Those grounds include manifest unsuitability and a severe and continuing crisis of confidence, or substantial and prolonged disagreements, that prevent efficient and proper functioning.
In January 2024, the Minister of Economy and Industry asked the Civil Service Commissioner to convene the Appointments Committee to consider ending Cohen’s tenure. After a preliminary review conducted in coordination with government legal advisers, the Commissioner declined, finding no prima facie factual basis for the asserted grounds. Lavi, a public-interest organization, petitioned for the Committee to be convened. In July 2025, a Supreme Court majority ordered the Commissioner to convene it to examine the minister’s crisis-of-confidence claim. The Commissioner, the Appointments Committee, and the Attorney General sought a further hearing before an expanded five-justice panel.
The Court’s Holding
The expanded Court reaffirmed the central holding of the earlier judgment: the Civil Service Commissioner, acting alone, has no authority to prevent the Appointments Committee from considering a minister’s request to terminate a covered senior official’s fixed-term appointment. The governing government decisions assign the substantive assessment to the Committee as a whole. The Commissioner’s role as chair and the Civil Service Commission’s responsibility for coordinating the Committee’s work do not confer an independent power to reject the request on its merits before the Committee meets.
The Court clarified that the Committee itself may address an apparently baseless request through an expedited preliminary proceeding and promptly recommend against removal if the request proves frivolous. It also explained that a severe and continuing crisis of confidence cannot rest merely on a minister’s subjective dissatisfaction or on an independent official’s lawful exercise of professional judgment; the applicable ground requires the conditions specified in the government decision, including resulting impairment of efficient and proper functioning. The Court did not decide whether the minister’s allegations were true or whether Cohen should be removed. Those questions remained for the Committee, and the order requiring its consideration of the request stood.
Key Takeaways
- The Civil Service Commissioner cannot unilaterally screen out a minister’s request to end the fixed term of a senior official governed by the relevant government decisions.
- The Appointments Committee may use a prompt preliminary procedure to reject a frivolous or facially unsupported request.
- A crisis of confidence does not convert an independent regulatory office into a position of personal trust; the prescribed removal conditions must be established.
Why It Matters
The decision defines how removal proceedings must operate for senior Israeli civil servants whose independence is protected by fixed terms and government-established procedures. It preserves the Committee’s collective responsibility while allowing rapid dismissal of baseless requests, balancing regulatory independence against the elected government’s lawful authority to initiate removal proceedings.
The ruling is particularly significant for enforcement and regulatory officials such as the Commissioner of Competition: opening a proceeding does not establish grounds for removal, and disagreements over matters committed to an official’s independent judgment do not by themselves justify termination.