Litigation SearchRefine/Modify Search
Search Results Results 1-10 of 33
E-Cig Ltd. v. Ministry of Health [Israel] [December 03, 2014]
The Ministry of Health required a special permit for the import of any nicotine products to Israel as pharmaceutical drugs, except for smoking products. A company seeking to import electronic cigarettes challenged this decision arguing that electronic cigarettes are recreational products, rather than pharmaceuticals, and that the ministry has no authority to limit their freedom of occupation without any specific legislation banning electric cigarettes. The court noted that the goal of protecting the public from the risks of electronic cigarettes warrants a prohibition on their import and sale, however, this can only be done by the legislature; the Ministry of Health acted without authority and its decision is thus void.
Elias v. Israel Railways [Israel] [May 13, 2014]
Train Passengers sued the train company for inefficient enforcement of the smoke free law, claiming that they were harmed by other passengers smoking on open platforms. The court certified the lawsuit as class action on behalf of 320,000 non-smoking passengers for 100 Shekel for each second hand smoking incident, total of 32 million Shekel ($9M).
de Shalit v. Zippori Center [Israel] [May 11, 2014]
A family sued a swimming pool’s management for lack of efficient enforcement of a law prohibiting smoking in public spaces. In a small claims procedure, the court found the pool liable for the family's damages because the pool did not place signs prohibiting smoking in accordance with the law, and pool staff refused to order other people at the pool premises to stop smoking.
Ronen v. Mano Maritime [Israel] [December 24, 2013]
A passenger on a cruise ship sued the cruise operators for violation of the smoke free law by not enforcing the prohibition of smoking on the ship. By consent, the cruise company agreed to add to all passengers’ contract terms a warning regarding smoking during the cruise and to compensate the plaintiff. The court did not conclude whether the Israeli smoke free law applied to foreign flag ships in international waters.
Tamam v. Ghanem [Israel] [July 31, 2013]
A pregnant secretary quit her position at an attorney's office because the attorney refused to enforce a non-smoking policy in the office, in violation of a smoke free law. The court treated her resignation as if she was forced to leave and ordered the employer to pay compensation for violations of both employment laws and the smoke free law.
Cigarette Distributors Division v. Ministry of Health [Israel] [July 03, 2013]
Owners of automatic cigarette vending machines challenged a law prohibiting the sale of cigarettes through such machines. The Supreme Court held that the infringement of the seller’s property rights and the right to freedom of occupation is justified as the law is rationally connected to the important public interest in limiting the access of minors to tobacco products, minimizing the risk of smoking, and restricting the advertisement of tobacco products.
State of Israel v. Vidal [Israel] [June 23, 2013]
This is a criminal procedure against a bar manager for violations of a smoke free law. The Court found the defendant criminally guilty for not enforcing the law by allowing bar guests to smoke in the premises. The Court ordered a personal fine of 14,000 Shekel ($3,500).
Litvin v. Bella Shlomkins [Israel] [June 06, 2013]
This is an appeal to the Supreme Court. Guests of a club and bar sued the club for not enforcing the prohibition of indoor smoking under the smoke free law. The District Court ordered an award of 90,000 Shekel ($25,000) to be paid to the Israel Cancer Association. The Supreme Court raised the award to 1,160,000 Shekel ($325,000) to be paid to the Israel Cancer Association for the treatment and prevention of lung cancer.
Avrahami v. Haifa Municipal Theatre [Israel] [December 03, 2012]
Members of a theater audience sued the theatre company for violation of the smoke free law during a play in which an actor was smoking a cigarette. The District Court denied the certification of the lawsuit as a class action, stating that in balancing the right to artistic freedom with the smoke free law, one cigarette in a play should be allowed. The Supreme Court held that the accurate interpretation of the smoke free law prohibits any smoking on stage, but did not overturn the decision.
Alroi v. Philip Morris [Israel] [November 27, 2012]
Smokers of cigarettes marked as “light,” sued Philip Morris, a tobacco company, for violations of the Consumer Protection Law by presenting the product to be less harmful than other cigarettes. The court denied the certification of the claim as class action, stating that the smokers knowingly accepted the risk because all cigarettes packets—including “light” cigarettes—contain warnings of the dangers of smoking while no misrepresentation was made by the tobacco company that “light” cigarettes are less harmful than non-“light” ones. The court added that the declaratory relief became moot, since the state bars marking cigarettes as “light,” “mild,” or “low tar.”