Israel’s proposed judicial reforms shouldn’t jeopardize judicial review by its independent High Court of Justice, Venice Commission President Claire Bazy Malaurie said in a statement on Tuesday.
“The Venice Commission has consistently stated that in a democratic country governed by the rule of law and respectful of fundamental rights, meaningful judicial review of the compatibility of laws – especially those affecting individual rights – with fundamental principles, should be carried out by independent courts, whose decisions must be upheld and respected by all,” she said. “These courts should be shielded from political interference, notably [regarding] their composition. Decisions by apex courts should be final and binding on all state institutions and individuals.”
The Venice Commission, officially the Commission for Democracy through Law, is a Council of Europe body. According to its website, it supports “constitutional, legislative, or administrative reforms to ensure the progress of democracy, the protection of fundamental rights and the respect for the rule of law.”
Malaurie called on the government, which has been a member of the commission since 2008, to respect these principles through a process of broad agreement.
In Sunday’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee session, Labor MK Gilad Kariv said that he planned to petition Justice Minister Yariv Levin and President Isaac Herzog to contact the Venice Commission for advice.
Kariv’s appeal regarding the commission came following a discussion on the security and international law impact of the judicial reform. Deputy Attorney-General on international law Gilad Noam had expressed concern that the international courts would claim jurisdiction over IDF soldiers and Israeli officials because Israel would ostensibly no longer have an independent and responsible court system.
Several international legal opinions have been leveled against the judicial reforms since they were first proposed by Levin in early January.
International legal opinions on judicial reform
On February 9, more than 50 Canadian jurists and law professors issued an open letter “out of concern that recent proposals to transform Israel’s legal system will weaken democratic governance, undermine the rule of law, jeopardize the independence of the judiciary, impair the protection of human rights, and diminish the international respect currently accorded to Israeli legal institutions.”
They cautioned that while any system could be improved, Israel’s legal system already had an exceptional amount of concentration of power in the legislature. They compared Israel to Canada, which has a more comprehensive bill of rights, a formalized constitution and a bicameral legislature. The High Court, they said, was the only constraint on political power.
The Canadian legal experts joined the reservations made in an open letter signed by over 150 American law professors on January 29.
According to the American letter, which had also been signed by notable law professor Alan Dershowitz, the reforms “would grant the ruling coalition absolute power to appoint justices and judges, make it almost impossible for the Supreme Court to invalidate legislation, severely limit judicial review of executive-branch decisions, and curtail the independence of the attorney-general and legal advisers assigned to different government agencies.”