- The petitioners' arguments
- The petitioners argued that not every defect noted in the audit was indeed a defect. Thus, for example, it was argued that there was no substance to the claim that non-pharmacist employees distributed dangerous drugs at the Tiberias branch, and in any event, no document was attached to the summons to the hearing in this regard.
Regarding the publications, it was claimed that they were "conservative and cautious" and that they did not encourage increased consumption of cannabis products. With regard to the publications on the petitioner's Facebook page, it was claimed that they were all the publications on the company's official website and that they did not violate the instructions of the Petitioner regarding advertising. It was claimed that other pharmacies that deal with medical cannabis also advertise this extensively, but no enforcement action has been taken against them; The petitioner implemented the comments of the Medical Cannabis Authority on the subject of the publication and that the very publication of the practice of medical cannabis was approved in the case law; Similar to publications by lawyers, it is necessary to warn about the defect in the publication before imposing a sanctions.
- The petitioner disagreed with the descriptions of his conduct during the audit conducted at the Tiberias branch. He claimed that, contrary to what was claimed, he cooperated and only sought to allow his employees to be aware of their rights during the audit. It was claimed that the Tiberias branch returned to activity under the new license (not in accordance with section 4.1.1 of the Licensing Guidelines, but in accordance with section 4.1.4). Therefore, it was argued that the cancellation of the petitioner's license was done in an improper manner, especially since the decision at the hearing was based on the findings of the audit, without examining the changes that took place.
It was further argued that section 25E of the Drugs Ordinance, regarding the revocation of a license due to a violation of security and protection conditions, does not apply to the petitioner, and that in the general provision in the licensing guidelines regarding the revocation of a license, no clear criteria were set for this purpose. It was argued that the director of the HUD exercised his authority regarding the revocation of the license in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, and that his conduct contradicted the decision of the Israel Police to allow the petitioner to engage in drugs. It also contradicts the decision inAdministrative Petition (Jerusalem) 5114-08-23 of August 11, 2023, that after the appointment of a pharmacist, the head of the Tiberias branch will be able to continue working. It was argued that the revocation or non-renewal of a license, as opposed to the granting of a license, can only be based on convincing and unequivocal evidence, especially due to the infringement of the freedom of occupation.
- The petitioners disagreed with the determination that the petitioner endangered the public. They reiterated that Jabareen was recently appointed to the position of pharmacist in charge, and according to them, she reformed the Tiberias branch, refined procedures and corrected deficiencies that were discovered even before the hearing. According to them, the field of dealing with cannabis is "new, dynamic and sensitive", and therefore the manner in which the authority of the Director of Cannabis is exercised in cases in which defects that have been corrected are discovered is unclear.
Regarding the opinion of the district pharmacists on which the decision was based, it was claimed that it reviewed reviews of pharmacies, most of which did not sell medical cannabis at all, and therefore there was no appropriate control group. It is also "silent" on the issue of the punishment imposed on pharmacies where deficiencies have been discovered.
- Claims were also raised regarding the Kiryat Ata branch, although it seems that they are no longer relevant. In any event, it was argued that there was no reason to reject the application for a license for the branch solely on the grounds that the petitioner is the owner of the company operating the branch. It was also argued that there was no impediment to granting the initial approval and that there was no evidence to substantiate the decision regarding this branch.
The petitioners reiterated the arguments regarding the passage of time between the date of the audit and the date of the hearing, and that no weight was given to the changes made in the Tiberias branch since the audit. It was argued that no weight was given to the material violation of the Petitioner's and the chain's freedom of occupation and the fact that the denial of continuing to engage in cannabis is severe, severe and disproportionate, since it would mean the immediate liquidation of the Petitioner's business and the cessation of his livelihood and the livelihood of his family. It was argued that there was room for a reasonable and proportionate sanction and not as determined in the decision. It was also argued that the condition requiring the transfer of ownership to another entity as a condition for the continuation of the operation of the Tiberias branch was not included in the invitation to a hearing, so that the petitioners had no possibility of defending against it, and that this defect justifies the cancellation of the decision.