Restrictive Measures Against the Prime Minister’s Advisor: A Legal Analysis

Commentary by Adv. Maxim Rakov, Partner at ENR Law and former Legal Advisor to Israel’s National Security Council

How significant is the district court’s decision to reinstate restrictive measures against Yonatan Urich after they had been lifted?

The decision carries substantial practical weight. As matters stand, Urich is now barred from communicating with the Prime Minister and from entering his office. A separate question worth considering is whether he should have been permitted access to the Prime Minister’s Office at all, given that the very existence of an active police investigation ought to have affected his security clearance and status.

It should be noted that, according to available information, Urich does not maintain an office within the Prime Minister’s Office itself — he works out of Metzudat Ze’ev, the Likud party headquarters. However, any communication with the Prime Minister would have required him to visit the official premises, which is now prohibited under the court’s ruling.

What is the legal basis for these restrictions?

The judicial order stems from the ongoing police investigation. No indictment has yet been filed. The law permits the imposition of restrictions as a condition of release on bail for a period of up to 180 days, with the possibility of a further 180-day extension, provided the application for extension is submitted before the initial period expires.

This is precisely what occurred in the case involving the leak of documents to the German newspaper Bild: the initial 180-day period in the Qatargate case had expired, and police filed their extension request mere hours before the deadline. The court noted that it cannot adjudicate such matters on an emergency basis — the materials must be transmitted to the defense for a proper response. Consequently, the court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant an extension due to the missed procedural deadline.

However, in the second case — concerning the leak of documents from the Prime Minister’s residence — the initial 180-day period had not yet elapsed, enabling the court to approve the extension. From Urich’s perspective, the specific case under which the restrictions operate is immaterial: he remains prohibited from communicating with Netanyahu and from accessing certain locations.

What scenarios might unfold — tightening of measures, formal charges, or case dismissal?

Police have indicated their intention to file an indictment within two months. Once charges are formally brought, the legal framework shifts considerably. At present, Urich holds the status of a suspect, not a defendant. The presumption of innocence applies, and the court makes its determinations on that basis.

Police must justify the necessity of each restriction: demonstrating that the suspect’s contact with certain individuals could impede the investigation, that he might tamper with evidence, or that the gravity of the alleged offenses makes his presence in certain locations inappropriate.

Once an indictment is filed, the situation changes fundamentally. The accused still enjoys the presumption of innocence until conviction, but his procedural status is different, and the court’s authority to impose restrictions expands significantly.

How do you assess the police’s handling of this matter?

What occurred was a procedural lapse on the part of the police. If investigators believed that restrictions remained necessary for the continuation of their work, the extension application should have been filed well in advance — not in the final hours before the deadline. One should not draw sweeping conclusions from this incident — it was a technical error, albeit one with meaningful procedural consequences.