The decision of August 6, 2023 was attacked by an administrative petition. The request for an interim injunction was rejected due to the lack of cleanliness of the hands of the petitioners, who acted illegally by continuing to engage in the sale of medical cannabis in violation of the District Pharmacist's decision of July 20, 2023, and without an approved responsible pharmacist (Administrative Petition (Jerusalem) 5114-08-23, decision of the Honorable Judge D. Cohen-Lekach, dated August 11, 2023).
- In December 2023, following the appointment of a new pharmacist in charge of the Tiberias branch, Mr. Wafa Marei Jabareen, the branch was granted a license valid until December 10, 2024.
However, after deficiencies were found in the conduct of the pharmacist in charge, Jabareen, she was summoned to a hearing with the district pharmacist in order to decide on her appointment. This decision was attacked in the petition, following which the District Pharmacist retracted it and the petition was deleted (Administrative Petition (Nazareth) 18486-03-24 (April 10, 2024), the Honorable Judge A. Avraham).
On March 5, 2024, the petitioner sent an email to the district pharmacist, in which he announced that he would not provide him with additional documents, unless the ministry's legal advisor or a representative of the district attorney's office was contacted, and only after the petitioner's approval. In addition, on March 18, 2024, the petitioner sent a warning letter before taking legal action against the district pharmacist, in which it was claimed that his actions caused the petitioner economic damages resulting from the delay in the licensing proceedings and the damage to his reputation. In this regard, it should be noted that according to Section 60K of the Pharmacists Ordinance, the District Pharmacists are authorized to serve as supervisors and to demand from any person concerned any information or document necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the provisions of the Ordinance. Therefore, an alleged objection on the part of the petitioner to the delivery of documents is contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance and even prevents proper supervision.