Acting Israeli Supreme Court president says justice minister is ‘harming the proper functioning of the justice system’

Justice Minister Yariv Levin on Monday presented the High Court of Justice with a compromise proposal regarding the appointment of the next president of the Supreme Court

The proposal emerges amid controversy following Levin's failure to secure an agreement with the current acting president of the Supreme Court, Justice Uzi Vogelman, who is due for mandatory retirement in October. There has also been controversy over the procedures for appointing the chief justice and new Supreme Court justices.

Levin’s desire to change the makeup of the High Court and how justices are selected was one of the most controversial aspects of the judicial reform overhaul adopted by the coalition. 

Since Supreme Court President Esther Hayut retired last year, no permanent successor has been appointed because Levin has refused to convene the Judicial Appointments Committee. In addition, Justice Anat Baron retired in October 2023 and has not been replaced. As a result, with Vogelman's upcoming retirement this October, a total of three vacancies will need to be filled.

According to Levin's proposal, Judge Yosef Elron, a conservative justice, would serve as court president for one year, until his retirement in September 2025, after which another judge would be appointed, as proposed by representatives of the judiciary. Both appointments would be approved by the committee simultaneously at the same hearing. 

Levin also proposed appointing three justices to the Supreme Court: One to be appointed by members of the committee from the judicial system, one appointed by a majority of elected officials on the committee, and a third appointed by agreement from all the members of the Judicial Appointments Committee.

This proposal would allow Justice Yitzhak Amit to become president after Elron, in accordance with the seniority system. While not a legal requirement, Israel’s High Court of Justice has customarily appointed the longest-serving judge to preside over the Supreme Court.

Elron, who is favored by Levin, does not have seniority in this system. Levin has criticized the seniority system and believes the elected government should have the ability to determine the president of the court. 

Vogelman rejected Levin's proposal that Elron serve as president of the Supreme Court for one year.

He wrote: "Your proposal raises considerable legal difficulties," and claimed the proposal “harms the equality of the committee members and makes the voices of some of its members redundant.” 

Vogelman accused Levin of “preventing the exercise of various powers that are required for the proper functioning of the judiciary.”

He listed examples, including Levin’s refusal to hold regular work meetings with the justices, refusal to appoint chairs and members to statutory committees, and his refusal to appoint senior and district court judges.

“Your conduct harms the proper functioning of the judicial system, civil service and the separation of powers,” Vogelman claimed.

“Presenting a proposal based on abolishing the seniority system does not represent any progress, and moreover, the appointment of two judges to serve consecutively as Chief Justice raises considerable legal difficulties.” 

On Tuesday, the chairman of the Bar Association, Amit Bachar, responded to Levin's proposal that was presented to the High Court.

"This is not a compromise proposal, this was the minister's position from the beginning. This is a position that is not acceptable to me under any circumstances, and it brought about the need for the High Court [to act.]” 

According to Bachar, Levin will not agree to convene the committee to select judges because the president to be elected is Yitzhak Amit.

"He says: 'Until there is the candidate I want, I will not convene the committee.' This is illegal, and that's why the petition was filed,” said Bachar. He accused Levin of abusing his position to prevent the selection of a president he did not like. 

“This is not a compromise, but a continuation of the attempted regime coup,” Bachar emphasized.

“The only method that disconnects the election of a Supreme Court president from politicization and veto power is the seniority system, with its advantages and disadvantages. Another major flaw in the [Levin] proposal is the illegal use that the justice minister makes of his position as chairman of the committee in order to prevent a vote on the election of a president and in this way also to force the majority of the committee to judge on his behalf.”

“The majority in the committee has to choose to be president. The court cannot exist without a permanent court president,” Bachar asserted.