In any event, many of the petitioners' claims, including, for example, regarding the erroneous shipment that was allegedly sent to them or regarding the correction of the defects, were not supported by anything substantial and do not replace the findings of the audit.
- Publication Topic: Regulation 42 in the Drug Regulations, which was titled "Restriction to Commercial Advertisement", states that "A person shall not make an advertisement for dangerous drugs, for any commercial purpose, except in the professional literature and in the professional press in the field of medicine and pharmacy, and with the prior written approval of the Director".
On June 9, 2021, a clarification was published by the Director of the Medical Center regarding the criteria for a permitted advertisement and a prohibited advertisement for the sale of medical cannabis products by a licensee. The essence of the rules that were established was that advertising is permitted on the website of a company licensed to practice medical cannabis or of a pharmacy with a license to practice in accordance with the established rules. However, it is forbidden to present information that may "encourage unlawful and unmedical use or to mislead the public."
Regarding the publications on the petitioner's Facebook page, the decision at the hearing determined that they did not comply with the same guidelines and that they could not be considered as an advertisement on the pharmacies' website. Contrary to the petitioners' arguments, no ruling was found permitting publications such as those of the petitioner. In any event, as was clarified in the decision, this was not the basis of the decision, and if it had been the only violation, it may not have been sufficient to invalidate the petitioner's license to practice medical cannabis. Therefore, in any event, accepting or rejecting the petitioners' argument regarding the publication does not raise or lower it.
- The Petitioner's conduct during the audit in March 2023: In summary, the petitioner interfered with the proper course of the audit and this was even documented in a video filmed by one of the members of the audit team. He instructed his employees not to cooperate and even wrote the matter in a clear and explicit manner in an email he sent on March 5, 2024 to the district pharmacist in which it was stated that he would no longer transfer documents from the distant homes, unless the ministry's legal department contacted him and the petitioner himself approved it.
As was also described at length in the comprehensive reply on behalf of the respondents, the main points of which were cited above, the petitioner's conduct over a long period of time included abnormal, aggressive and aggressive conduct, which was expressed, inter alia, but not only, in the manner in which he conducted himself during the audit in a manner that interfered with its proper management. The petitioner himself even confirmed this and admitted his harsh remarks towards Ministry of Health officials during one of the hearings of the many petitions he filed (see the petition's remarks in the hearing of December 21, 2023, before the Honorable Judge D. Gidoni inAdministrative Petition (Jerusalem) 40666-08-23. See also what was stated regarding the petitioner's conduct in the court's decision (the Honorable Justice D. Cohen-Lekach) of May 1, 2024 inAdministrative Petition (Jerusalem) 5114-08-23, which justifies the justification for requiring him to pay the respondents' expenses). This was not a one-time case, but rather an ongoing conduct of the petitioner vis-à-vis the parties required to conduct an audit in accordance with the provisions of the law. If this is the practice of an audited entity, despite the obligation to conduct the audit as a condition for granting the license, it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to give weight to its conduct.
- Freedom of Occupation: There is no dispute that freedom of occupation is not absolute and that it can be restricted by legislation requiring a license. Subject to its compliance with the instructions Section 4 IIBasic Law: Freedom of Occupation (See, inter alia, in the matter of Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 2814/12 Rodriguez v. Ministry of Health Medical Professions Licensing Division (July 9, 2013), the Honorable Justice A. Vogelman, paragraph 10 and the case law there). There is also no dispute that the provisions regulating the license to practice dangerous drugs, and in particular, medical cannabis, and especially in pharmacies, are intended for a proper purpose, and that there is justification for restricting practice in this field in compliance with the provisions of the law. In any event, if it is found that the applicant to practice in the field of medical cannabis does not meet these requirements, he will be prevented from obtaining a license to practice and therefore the argument that it is not possible to prevent the practice of medical cannabis due to an infringement of the freedom of occupation should not be accepted.
- Selective enforcement: The petitioners' arguments regarding selective enforcement were mainly directed at the subject of the audits conducted at the chain's branches, and claimed that there was increased enforcement, which deviated from what is customary in pharmacies with licenses to practice medical cannabis. The opinion of the district pharmacists dealt with this claim and detailed the circumstances in which inspections are conducted in pharmacies engaged in this field of practice. As detailed there (as detailed in summary above), the district pharmacists determine the program of inspections in the following circumstances: an opening audit, to verify the suitability of the pharmacy for dealing with medical cannabis; The need for an audit is examined in light of the time that has passed since the last inspection, and as a rule, an audit is conducted at least once every three years, even in the absence of a known problem with the functioning of the site; If deficiencies are found, a re-audit is required to see if they have been corrected; Auditing for the purpose of providing an opinion to the local authority prior to granting a business license; Audits following complaints or unusual information. In addition, reports are examined that the pharmacies are required to send for inspection.
In the circumstances at hand, the petitioners did not point to information that substantiates their claim regarding selective enforcement, did not show that the inspections carried out at the chain's branches were made due to extraneous considerations, and did not show that there was another pharmacy in which the same defects, or similar defects, were found, against which no audits or hearings were taken. This is therefore an unsubstantiated claim, so this is sufficient to dismiss it.