Justice Minister Yariv Levin has until January 26 to convene the Judicial Selection Committee in order to appoint a permanent Chief Justice, the High Court ruled on Thursday. The ruling was given hours before the initial January 16 deadline, which was set to expire on Thursday at midnight.
Levin received the 10-day extension in order to bring before the committee information regarding allegations of a number of conflict-of-interest violations by Judge Yizhak Amit, the leading candidate to become Chief Justice.
The judges Yael Vilner, Ofer Groskopf, and Alex Stein wrote that the extension was intended to avoid the appearance of a lack of due process, despite the fact that Levin brought the new allegations just days before the deadline was set to expire.
The court ruled already in September that Levin was legally obligated to enable the appointment of a Chief Justice. Levin did not do so, and in a hearing in December over whether Levin should be held in contempt of court, the judges defined a deadline – January 16 – to fulfill its orders.
The ruling was a rejection of the position of Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, who argued in a court filing earlier on Thursday that Levin should not receive another extension.
The AG wrote that it was not clear why Levin waited until the days before the deadline to air the allegations, some of which arose already in 2023. In addition, the AG wrote that she had accepted the recommendations of all the “investigative and professional officials” and that there was “no basis and justification” to carry out any criminal investigative actions against Amit.
On an ethical level, the Judicial Selection Committee was the authorized body to determine whether or not they should affect Amit’s candidacy, and for this reason, as well it was imperative for the committee to convene.
In addition to a letter earlier this week to the High Court in which Levin wrote that there was “no alternative” but to postpone the vote until the allegations were clarified, the justice minister on Thursday morning filed an official disciplinary complaint against Amit.
According to the law, the justice minister has the right to file an official complaint against a judge, which is brought before a special disciplinary tribunal. The tribunal then decides where or not to apply sanctions, which range from issuing a “warning” to removing the judge from his or her position.
The allegations first aired in a report on Monday by Yediot Ahronot reporter Netael Bandel. Bandel reported that Amit was listed under his previous name, Yizhak Goldfreund, in a number of legal proceedings relating to a structure owned jointly by Amit and his brother. According to Bandel, Amit had not reported the proceedings and had also not reported a conflict of interest in cases regarding the Tel Aviv Municipality, which had taken legal action against Amit and his brother.
Amit explained in a written response that although his name had not been technically removed from the legal proceedings, he had given to his brother all legal responsibilities specifically in order to remove himself from such conflicts of interest.
Other allegations
Other allegations had to do with a series of cases involving the First International Bank of Israel and Dor Alon, companies that Amit’s brother had been involved in at different points in his career. Levin argued, based on a report by journalist Kalman Liebskind in August 2023, that in 13 cases, Amit had improperly sat in cases involving the companies despite his conflict of interest.
Amit responded by publishing a response he had given to Liebskind immediately after the initial publication. The response addressed every one of the 13 cases and explained why there was no conflict of interest for various reasons, including that some of the cases did not coincide with the dates in which his brother was involved in the companies; some of the cases addressed a large number of banks or companies, and not the First International Bank of Israel in particular; and more.
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel (MQG), the petitioner in the case to force Levin to appoint a Chief Justice, said in response to the extension:
“This is a regrettable decision that is a reward for institutional bullying and legitimizes the improper conduct of Minister Levin, who is trying every possible way to prevent the proper appointment of the president of the Supreme Court. The minister of justice is systematically working to thwart the appointment process through procedural tricks and inventing demands that have no legal basis. Granting an extension sends a dangerous message that the justice system can be bent through procrastination and evading judicial decisions. We in the Movement for Quality Government in Israel will continue to closely monitor the conduct of the minister and will use all means at our disposal to ensure the appointment of a permanent president to the Supreme Court."
Levin's office responds to the ruling
Levin’s office said in response to the ruling, “Minister Levin led a struggle for over a year that was unprecedented, causing one of the greatest embarrassments in the history of the Supreme Court. The struggle exposed to the public how things are managed at the pinnacle of the judicial system and how the Supreme Court judges demand one thing from the entire public while applying completely different rules to themselves.”
“The decision itself is a clumsy attempt to show that a proper procedure is taking place. Since when is an appointment date set without regard to whether the candidate's examination has been completed or not?”
“The decision states that Levin will present the additional material that has accumulated to the committee. But the committee is not an investigative body, so in order to implement the decision, a thorough police investigation must be conducted to bring all the necessary information before the committee,” Levin’s office concluded.