What is the Significance of the Justice Minister’s Declaration that he Will Not Cooperate with the President of the Supreme Court?

The lack of cooperation between the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court has numerous consequences that will, among other things, harm the services provided by the judiciary to the citizens of Israel.

Photos by: Yonatan Sindel & Chaim Goldberg/Flash90

The lack of cooperation between the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court has numerous consequences that will, among other things, harm the services provided by the judiciary to the citizens of Israel.

Cooperation between the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court is essential for the proper functioning of the judiciary. This cooperation is facilitated, among other means, through regular working meetings, which have been a longstanding practice between the Minister and the President of the Supreme Court.

Minister Levin’s declaration that he will not recognize the President of the Supreme Court is, in fact, a continuation of his actions, which included halting working meetings several months ago, even during the term of Acting President Uzi Vogelman.

The following are the consequences of the lack of cooperation between the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court, which will adversely affect the services provided by the judiciary to the citizens of Israel:

Appointment of the Ombudsman of the Judiciary

Since May 2024, when Uri Shoham, the Ombudsman of the Judiciary (which investigates complaints against judges), retired due to the end of his term in office, no replacement has been found. This is because the Minister of Justice and the acting President of the Supreme Court were unable to agree on a candidate, as required by law. The lack of cooperation will also prevent them from reaching an agreement on a candidate in the future. In the absence of an Ombudsman, complaints filed by citizens against judges cannot be resolved.

Appointment of Supreme Court Justices

It will not be possible to reach an agreement within the Judicial Selection Committee on candidates for Supreme Court Justices. Due to the retirement of judges, the Supreme Court currently has 12 justices out of 15, leaving it with a 20% shortage. The increasing workload on the serving justices may harm the judicial services provided to citizens.

Appointment of Additional Judges in the Courts

Although judges were appointed yesterday, moving forward, reaching an agreement within the Judicial Selection Committee will not be possible to fill additional judicial positions in the courts. This move also further increases the workload on the sitting judges and may harm the judicial services provided to citizens.

Other Essential Appointments in the Courts

The Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court cannot appoint various key figures in the judiciary who require mutual agreement. These include appointing presidents for district or magistrate courts, temporarily assigning sitting judges to serve in another court, or appointing a judge who has already retired as an associate judge (appointment of a judge who has already retired for a fixed period of time). A lack of cooperation in this area may cause systemic and administrative harm to the judiciary’s functioning.

The Day-to-Day Management of the Judiciary

Collaboration between the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court is necessary for the daily management of the judiciary. For example, cooperation is required to address specific or systemic solutions to case backlogs or to allocate the judiciary’s budget. The efficiency of the judiciary’s operations may suffer without such cooperation.

Protecting Judicial Independence

The protection of the independence of judges and the judiciary's autonomy may also be compromised. Traditionally, the Minister of Justice has been responsible for safeguarding these critical public interests within the government.

 

Watch the video explainer: