Today (Thursday) the Supreme Court unanimously agreed to the petition, in which it was requested to order the cancellation of the appointment of the chairman of the Advisory Committee for Appointments to Senior Positions, which was set for a full term of 8 years, by an outgoing government, during an election period.
The ruling of the Supreme Court states that "the ombudsman's directive establishes the rule as stated - according to which 'permanent appointments to these positions should be avoided during an election period', the rule is therefore the absence of an appointment for a full term of office during an election period, and the exception is such an appointment.
When an urgent solution is required, the rule is that another reasonable and adequate solution must be found, and the exception (appointment for a full term of office) only applies when no such solution is found."
"Given this legal situation, the burden of proving the existence of the exception rests on the shoulders of the respondents who claim it. In other words, the respondents must prove that in light of the totality of the circumstances of this case, there is no other reasonable and adequate solution, including that the solution of a temporary appointment or an appointment "Hook" is neither reasonable nor inappropriate; and that the chairman of the committee should therefore be appointed for a full term. It seems that the respondents' counsel agreed to these things in the sense that it was acceptable to him that if the alternative solution was not unreasonable and inappropriate - it was appropriate for the government to choose it ".
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us