One of the central sections of the legal reform that Levin attempted to promote in the year before the war included a change in the composition of the Judicial Appointment Committee. Today, unelected representatives (judges of the High Court and representatives of the Bar Association) have a majority in the committee, and Levin sought to significantly change the committee’s attitude toward the elected officials in order to increase his influence on the selection of judges for the High Court, including those with a worldview closer to the values of reform. The reform was hampered by the legislative process, and Levin sought to avoid the committee’s meeting before changing its composition by law, which led to a non-conference of the committee for almost two years.
The failure to convene had a significant effect on the High Court of Justice – when at the end of 2023 two judges, including President Hayut, resigned; official replacements could not be appointed, and the Presidency of the Supreme Court was appointed by the method of seniority as the oldest judge – Uzi Fogelman, who served as Acting President in the past year. But this October, Fogelman will reach the age of 70 and will have to leave the court, and due to a Lack in the law (which did not imagine such a situation), there is no way to appoint a replacement for a replacement– and therefore the High Court will remain without a Chief Justice. The oldest judge, who is supposed to replace Fogelman, is Yitzhak Amit, who is known to be a strong opponent of the Levin reforms.
Levin proposed a compromise proposal to Justice Fogelman on the appointment of a new president to the High Court of Justice and the appointment of 3 new judges: Levin proposed that Fogelman be replaced by Justice Yosef Elron, known as a relative supporter of the Levin reforms, for a year (until he reaches the age of 70) – and later he will be replaced by Justice Amit. In addition, Levin suggested that the High Court should elect one judge in its opinion (according to reports Dr. Aviad Bakshi or Dr. Rafi Biton – the authors of the legal reform), one judge who is not on his behalf, and a neutral candidate. Fogelman expressed his objection in principle to the compromise proposal, because of the concern that changing the seniority system would lead to politicization of the High Court of Justice, and that the convention of the committee should not be held hostage by the Minister of Justice.
So what happens now? A negative option would be the issuing of an order from the High Court of Justice ordering Minister Levin to convene the committee as required by law, as this could lead to a constitutional crisis and a break in the relations between the executive branch and the judicial branch. There is still a month and a half before Fogelman’s retirement – enough time to find a compromise or agreement that would be acceptable to both sides, and prevent government deterioration during the war.
