Supreme Court Rejects Further Hearing, Allowing State Attorney to Rule on Tomer-Yerushalmi Case

Supreme Court Justice Daphna Barak-Erez has rejected a request for a further hearing and decided to allow State Attorney Amit Aismann to rule on the case involving the former Military Advocate General, Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi.

Background to the Decision

About three weeks ago, the Supreme Court rejected a petition and ruled that there was no legal ground for judicial intervention in the investigation of the Military Advocate General's affair. The court determined that there was no justification to interfere with the decision that the State Attorney would rule on the charges against the former Military Advocate General, Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi. Furthermore, the court ruled that there was no basis to grant Justice Minister Yariv Levin additional time to appoint an independent supervisor for the recently concluded investigation. This effectively gave the green light for the State Attorney's Office, led by State Attorney Amit Aismann, to proceed with a decision in the case.

However, MK Avichay Buaron of the Likud party and the right-wing Lavi Association subsequently filed a request with the Supreme Court for a further hearing on the matter to re-evaluate the decision. Pending the decision on whether to hold a further hearing, Justice Barak-Erez issued a temporary freeze on the handling of the case for technical reasons. With her latest ruling, she has lifted the temporary injunction, allowing Aismann to proceed with the case.

Justice Barak-Erez's Ruling

Justice Barak-Erez wrote in her decision:

«I have reached the conclusion that the requests for a further hearing do not require a response and that they should be dismissed right now, in accordance with my authority. It is an established legal principle that a further hearing is an exceptional and extraordinary proceeding, reserved for unique cases where a new ruling is issued that contradicts a previous ruling, or a ruling which, due to its difficulty, novelty, or importance, justifies a further hearing. An examination of the judgment subject to the requests shows that no new legal precedent was established in it, certainly not an explicit one that meets the standard that might justify a further hearing.»

She added regarding the responsibilities of the Justice Minister:

«In light of the severe implications attributed to the findings in the judgment, as well as the exceptional circumstances of the case, I would like to add several important distinctions: The decisions of the Justice Minister dealt with transferring all of the Attorney General's powers regarding the supervision of the investigation into the leak affair to another entity, without directly addressing the question of appointing an accompanying prosecutor for the investigation. Therefore, there is no foundation for the claim that the appointment of an accompanying prosecutor was a necessity. The authority of the Justice Minister under the Guardian of Democracy matter pertains solely to the appointment of a supervising entity.»

Justice Barak-Erez concluded by emphasizing the need to prevent political interference:

«The petitioners repeatedly argued that the authorized body to determine whether a conflict of interest exists or to remove it under the circumstances is the Justice Minister. The judgment in the Guardian of Democracy matter attributed weight to the fact that the Justice Minister's decision relied on a legal opinion, and in any case – it cannot be said that the judgment vested the minister with discretion regarding the determination of the conflict of interest itself. On the contrary, the judgment sought to establish clear limits on political interference in the investigation... It is to be hoped that at the current stage it will be possible to advance the completion of the handling of the affair as required by law.»