The subject of a pharmacist's approval to serve as a responsible pharmacist is regulated in Procedure No. 16 of the Ministry's Pharmacy Division (Respondent 3), "Procedure for Approval of a Pharmacist Responsible for the Management of a Pharmacy, Drug Room, Pharmaceutical Trading House or Other Medical Institution". Section 3.9 of this procedure regulates the issue of filling the place of a responsible pharmacist. According to his instructions, a responsible pharmacist must notify the owner of any absence (collective dispute A); If it is an absence of less than fourteen days, the responsible pharmacist must authorize an authorized pharmacist to replace him. If the absence exceeds 48 hours, a written power of attorney is required, which will be found in the places specified in the section and will be kept for the purpose of review, and the responsible pharmacist must send a copy of it along with a copy of the power of attorney's license to a designated email box at the District Pharmacy (Collective Dispute B); A pharmacist whose liability has been revoked cannot serve as a proxy pharmacist ( collective dispute C); If the absence exceeds fourteen days, approval from the district pharmacist is required for the substitute pharmacist (collective dispute D).
The pharmacist in charge is responsible for the professional management of the pharmacy and for complying with the provisions of the law and procedures. The purpose of the audits conducted by the district pharmacists is to ensure that the pharmacies are indeed operating lawfully in order to protect public health. The need for this meticulousness stems from the fact that they are stocked with dangerous preparations and drugs that may endanger the public. They are also required to ensure that defective products can be returned and that the preparations are stored properly and in accordance with the procedures.
Main Facts
- Background
- The Petitioner is the sole owner of M.S.M. Argaman Consulting and Development Ltd., the main shareholder in four different subsidiaries, including Petitioners 2 and 3, which hold branches of the pharmacy chain "Leaf" (Hereinafter also - The Network) since 2021. As will be described below, both petitioners were granted a license to practice medical cannabis.
The chain had two other branches in Rosh Pina and Hadera, but neither of them had a valid license to engage in cannabis. The license given to the branch in Hadera was frozen due to the resignation of the pharmacist in charge, and in the meantime this branch was sold and opened under a different ownership and under a different name. The branch in Rosh Pina applied for a new business license, but was recently closed.