1. **Subject of the dispute:** Appeal by a judge against the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding her disciplinary liability and the imposition of a sanction in the form of a submission for dismissal from office.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Court established that the disciplinary proceedings based on the complaint of PERSON_3 were initiated in a timely manner, as the complaint was received before the expiration of the three-year period from the date of the misconduct.
– Regarding the episode involving interference with the judge’s activities (NABU complaint), the Court rejected the HCJ’s position on the “continuing nature” of the offense, noting that the duty to report interference arises within 5 days after the judge becomes aware of it.
– The Grand Chamber emphasized that a disciplinary offense in the form of failure to report interference is considered completed after the expiration of this 5-day period; therefore, the calculation of the three-year statute of limitations for liability must begin from that exact moment.
– Since the three-year period (taking into account the periods of the judge’s incapacity for work) had already expired at the time of the submission of the NABU complaint, holding the judge liable for this episode is unlawful.
– The Court also confirmed that the HCJ complied with the requirements regarding the quantitative composition and the procedure for considering recusals of its members; therefore, the arguments regarding the lack of authority of the HCJ’s composition were rejected.
– Since the HCJ’s decision contained an error in calculating the statutes of limitations for liability, it is subject to revocation as failing to comply with the requirements of the law.
3. **Court decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially granted the judge’s appeal, revoked the HCJ’s decision, and referred the disciplinary case back to the HCJ for reconsideration.
**Conclusion:** In this decision, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departs from its previous position regarding the qualification of a judge’s failure to report interference in their activities as a “continuing offense,” clearly stating that this offense is completed upon the expiration of the 5-day period for filing the relevant report.
