Prime Minister’s Office chief of staff Tzachi Braverman has asked the Supreme Court for approval to appeal a district court decision reinstating restrictive conditions against him in the so-called “midnight meeting” affair, including a ban on leaving the country that has prevented him from assuming his post as Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom.
In a filing submitted on Wednesday, Braverman’s attorneys requested that the court intervene in a Tuesday ruling by the Lod District Court that restored a series of limitations imposed as part of an ongoing police probe into suspected security-related offenses, including obstruction of justice and breach of trust.
The investigation centers on allegations that Braverman received information about a military inquiry into the leak of classified documents to the German newspaper Bild and later met with former prime ministerial spokesman Eli Feldstein at the Kirya military headquarters in October 2024.
According to the filing, investigators suspect that during the late-night meeting, Braverman informed Feldstein of the existence of the probe, presented him with a list of names, and suggested that he could “turn it off.”
Police first opened an investigation into Braverman on January 11, 2026, following media reports in late December that Feldstein had publicly described the meeting in an interview. He was released after questioning under several conditions, including a 30-day travel ban, restrictions on contact with other individuals connected to the case, and an order barring him from entering the Prime Minister’s Office compound and the Kirya.
A magistrate’s court partially lifted those conditions on January 15, canceling both the travel ban and the workplace restrictions while narrowing the contact prohibition. The court found at the time that investigators had not acted with urgency following the publication of Feldstein’s account and that the prohibition on leaving Israel “was not relevant” to the investigative purpose cited by police.
That decision was overturned days later by the district court, which reinstated the conditions on the grounds that Braverman’s proximity to potential witnesses and senior officials posed a risk of interference with the investigation.
Court holds Braverman's departure from Israel would impair availability for questioning
The court further held that a departure from Israel could impair his immediate availability for questioning and that a travel ban may be imposed not only to prevent flight from justice but also to address concerns about obstruction of investigative proceedings.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, Braverman’s lawyers argue that the lower court erred in law by permitting a sweeping restriction on his movement absent concrete evidence of any attempt to obstruct the investigation.
They contend that the travel ban – which they note has already prevented him from taking up his diplomatic posting in London – constitutes a disproportionate infringement on his constitutional rights to liberty, freedom of movement, and freedom of occupation.
The appeal also puts a broader legal question before the court: whether judges weighing pre-trial restrictions can factor in wider public interests – including possible fallout for Israel’s foreign relations – and not just the needs of the investigation itself.
According to the appeal, the district court rejected the magistrate’s consideration of possible diplomatic fallout from Braverman’s inability to assume his ambassadorial duties, ruling that such factors fall outside the balance between investigative needs and individual rights required under the law.
Braverman’s legal team disputes that interpretation, arguing that when a suspect has been formally appointed to a senior diplomatic role, a restriction that effectively blocks the fulfillment of that appointment carries institutional consequences beyond the individual case.