The European Union responded to Israel Hayom's inquiry after attorney Yoram Sheftel – representing Justice Minister Yariv Levin in a petition filed by the Zulat Institute before the High Court of Justice – branded the European Union a "hostile" body and accused the bloc of orchestrating a coordinated effort to force Levin out of office.
"The claims made by a lawyer representing Justice Minister Yariv Levin regarding the EU are entirely false, offensive, and unacceptable," an EU spokesperson said. "The EU has never and will never attempt to bring down a democratically elected government. We expect these comments to be withdrawn immediately," the statement emphasized.
"We are proud of our support for civil society organizations across the world and in the region, including those promoting the democratic values that lie at the core of the EU's relationship with the State of Israel, such as freedom of speech and the freedom to protest."
The Zulat Institute filing demanded that Justice Minister Yariv Levin formally recognize the standing of Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit and work in cooperation with him. In remarks delivered before Thursday's court session, Levin's privately retained counsel, Yoram Sheftel, declared: "The European Union is hostile. Italy, France, and Spain have imposed an embargo to prevent us from winning a war of survival."
The comments formed part of Sheftel's broader rebuttal to the petition, in which he contended that the Zulat Institute draws its backing from foreign governments "extremely hostile to the State of Israel" – characterizing the legal challenge as an EU-orchestrated bid to remove Levin, one he said "is working to topple the elected government from power."
The standoff between Minister Levin and Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit dates to his appointment in January 2025. The Judicial Selection Committee voted to appoint him during a session that Levin and coalition members boycotted, prompting Levin to declare the appointment invalid. The fallout was immediate: judicial appointments, registrar appointments, and court president appointments ground to a halt, since each requires the minister and the Supreme Court president to work in tandem.
