The High Court of Justice rejected Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger's petition against Attorney General Menachem Mazuz Monday.

Metzger had submitted a petition against a scathing report published by Mazuz regarding the rabbi's alleged fraudulent activities, saying that the attorney general had no right to make his findings public before a hearing had been held.

A panel of five justices concluded that since the findings against Metzger in Mazuz's report were not final, he would have had the oppurtunity to argue his case later on - if steps to dismiss him from his post had been taken.

	Advertisement

The court ruling, which was written by President Dorit Beinisch, stated that holding a hearing for Metzger would have been unnecessary and would have only complicated matters.

Beinisch did however criticize Mazuz's report, stating that "perhaps such decisive and unequivocal wording should not have been used."

Police began investigating Metzger due to suspicions that he and his family paid only a nominal fee for their vacation at the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem over Pesach 2004. But over the course of the probe, police discovered that the Metzgers also received huge discounts at David Citadel during last year's Sukkot and Shavuot holidays, and enjoyed similarly discounted stays at other hotels.

During an investigation into the affair, police discovered that the Metzgers also allegedly received huge discounts at the David Citadel during 2004's Sukkot and Shavuot holidays, and enjoyed similarly discounted stays at other hotels.

In April, Mazuz decided not to seek an indictment against Metzger for fraud and breach of trust but did call on the rabbi to resign in his report.

"Given his flawed conduct, it is only right for Rabbi Metzger to take personal responsibility and decide - on his own accord - to step from his position as rabbinical judge and chief rabbi," Mazuz had said.

Metzger decided not to resign, and Mazuz later rescinded his demand that the rabbi do so. In his petition, Metzger wrote that Mazuz had damaged his good name, without being entitled to seeing the evidence against him in a hearing.