What it is about
The High Court of Justice ruled that Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s year-long delay in appointing a Chief Justice was unlawful and ordered him to start the process immediately.
Why it matters
This unprecedented ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the legal framework for judicial appointments, preserving the integrity of Israel’s justice system.
The Big Picture
Justice Minister Yariv Levin has delayed the appointment process for nearly a year, an action deemed unlawful by the High Court. This delay has left Israel without a permanent Chief Justice since former Chief Justice Esther Hayut’s retirement.
Appointment Process
Israel’s Chief Justice is appointed by the Judicial Appointments Committee, chaired by the Justice Minister. By tradition, the committee often selects the judge with the most seniority. Following Hayut’s retirement, Yizhak Amit was next in line, but the vote to elect him was stalled due to Levin’s support for conservative judge Yosef Elron.
Court’s Reasoning
The ruling by Yael Vilner, Ofer Groskopf, and Alex Stein clarified that while the Justice Minister can decide when to convene the committee, ignoring the purpose of the law—to appoint a Chief Justice—was not permissible. The interest in filling this position was deemed public, not personal to the justices.
Levin’s Defense
Levin argued for a “broad agreement” on the Chief Justice appointment, identifying it as his right. However, the High Court ruled that this should not stall the appointment process and does not include allowing indefinite delays.
Broader Impact
The delay in appointing a Chief Justice has led to interim measures, such as Judge Uzi Fogelman acting as interim Chief Justice, who will also soon retire. The High Court emphasized the urgency by noting the justice system’s potential entry into “paralysis.”
Levin’s Response
Justice Minister Levin criticized the ruling, labeling it a “severe conflict of interest” and asserting it contradicts the law. He accused the High Court of exploiting the situation post the October 7 wartime freeze on judicial reforms and rejected the proposed compromises, viewing the decision as undermining the coalition’s sizable voter base.
Looking Ahead
Opposition concerns, voiced by MK Yair Lapid, echoed the need to uphold the rule of law to ensure the state’s stability. The ruling not only clarifies procedural expectations but also aims to prevent similar impasses in the future, fostering a more robust judicial framework that benefits all of Israel’s citizens.
This story was first published on jpost.com.