Finally, we note that there is no room to invoke those judgments mentioned in the petitioners' arguments, which relate to licensing in the automotive industry or relate to a situation of a single infringement, etc.
- The Claim of Delay: The claim of delay relates to the passage of time between the inspection at the Tiberias branch on March 30, 2023, and the decision at the hearing on July 25, 2024. Thus, while the petitioners claimed that there were significant changes between the two dates, including the appointment of a new responsible pharmacist in November 2023, and that in December 2023, the Tiberias branch was granted a license to practice that is valid until December 10, 2024.
The respondents explained the passage of time in many actions that were taken between the two dates, which led to the fact that the invitation to the hearing was sent to the petitioners only on April 7, 2024. This included the involvement of various districts of the District Pharmacy, the concentration of complaints and deficiencies found in the chain's branches, the preparation of the invitation to the hearing, the waiting for the full responses of the petitioners, and more. It was also argued that the appointment of the responsible pharmacist did not cure all the defects, and in any event, the petitioner prevented her from transmitting the documents that were required to examine all of the petitioners' claims. These documents were ultimately transferred only following the court's decision inAdministrative Petition (Nazareth) 18486-03-24 (a petition detailed above, deleted on April 10, 2024).
An examination of all the facts, including about ten administrative petitions filed by the petitioners between the date of the inspection at the Tiberias branch and the decision at the hearing, greatly weakens the claim of delay. To this must be added the fact that the decision at the hearing is based not only on the findings of the audit from March 2023, but also on other serious findings, which were detailed above. This includes operating a pharmacy without an approved responsible pharmacist; preventing the transfer of reports to the Ministry of Health; interruption of reviews; delivering cannabis to patients other than through a pharmacist; disruption of documentation in pharmacies; The petitioner prevented the pharmacist in charge from submitting the required documents; Transferring cannabis for destruction and to commercial establishments without the approval of the District Pharmacist and the District Pharmacist in a manner that impaired the necessary supervision and control.