Find decisions by:
One or more of these keywords
The importer and manufacturers' forum of vaporization products at the Tel Aviv Chamber of Commerce challenged amendments to the Restriction of Advertising and Marketing of Tobacco Products Law passed in December 2018. The Tel Aviv Chamber of Commerce specifically challenged the extension of tobacco-related restrictions to e-cigarettes, including an advertising ban, a display ban, and plain packaging, as well as a nicotine concentration limit of 20mg/ml for e-liquids. This case was dismissed.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.”
Owner of a nightclub was cited by municipal inspectors for allowing smoking in the club. After the club-owner first contested the fine in Municipal Court, he was convicted in a criminal offense for violating his duty as an owner to enforce the smoke free law and the fine was increased. His appeal to the District Court was denied. In this case, The Supreme Court denied the club-owner’s petition for appeal based on selective enforcement, stating that the fact that the inspectors did not cite any individual smokers is not sufficient to grant the petition. The Court added that in future cases, enforcement agencies should enforce the law against smokers as well as owners.
Restaurant guests sued the restaurant for not enforcing the prohibition of smoking in public places under the smoke free law. After accepting testimonies, photographs, and other documentations, the court certified the suit as class action, citing evidence for the restaurant’s lack of response to customers’ complaint and evidence for employees smoking in the premises.
This is an appeal to the Supreme Court in two suits by healthcare providers against major tobacco companies for compensation for costs of treatment harms of smoking. In one case (Macabbi) the District Court dismissed the suit and in the other (Clalit) the Court denied a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court held that both cases should be dismissed due to lack of any liability or duty of care owed by the tobacco companies to healthcare providers. According to the decision, any suit must be filed against specific tobacco company, must name an individual that was harmed by smoking, and must state a specific harm.
Guests of the Bella Shlomkins, a Tel Aviv club and bar, sued the club fornot enforcing the prohibition of indoor smoking under the smoke free law. The court accepted the class action claim, and ordered an award of 90,000 Shekel ($25,000) to be paid to the Israel Cancer Association for the treatment and prevention of lung cancer, in addition to 60,000 Shekel to be paid to the representative plaintiffs and their attorney.
Fiks, an employee of the Kiryat Shmona municipality filed a tort suit against his employer for violation of a smoke free law prohibiting smoking in the work place. The court found the municipality liable because its offices had ashtrays that encouraged employees to smoke and lacked sufficient signs prohibiting smoking.
This is a criminal procedure against a bar and its managers for several violations of a smoke-free law. The court found the defendants criminally liable based on citizen’s reports to city code enforcement and sanctioned the defendants with a fine of 22,000 Shekel ($5,500).
This is a criminal procedure against a bar and its owners, for violations of a smoke free law. The Court found the defendants guilty because they did not enforce the law and did not direct their employees to order bar goers to not smoke. The Court ordered a fine of 40,000 Shekel ($11,000).
Guests of the Bella Shlomkins, a Tel Aviv club and bar, sued the club for not enforcing the prohibition of smoking in public places under the smoke free law. The court certified the suit as class action, despite owners’ claim that such certification will result in high damages that will force them out of business. The court said that the alternative is minor compensations that will not deter small and medium-sized business owners from violating the law.
This is a class action against a restaurant for violating a smoke-free law during a month when the restaurant was already involved in individual litigation for similar violations. The court approved the parties’ agreement by which the restaurant will provide all non-smokers who dined there that month with store credit in the sum of 1,000 Shekels ($300).
A restaurant guest sued the restaurant for not enforcing the prohibition of smoking in public places under the smoke free law. In a small claims procedure, the Court found the restaurant liable, because the restaurant did not post signs prohibiting smoking, as required by law, did not order customers to refrain from smoking, and encouraged smoking by providing guests with ashtrays.
Peled, who frequented a gym located inside the Dizengoff shopping mall, sued the management of the mall for lack of efficient enforcement of a law prohibiting smoking in public spaces. In a small claims procedure the court found the mall liable for Peled's damages because the mall did not place signs prohibiting smoking in accordance with the law, mall staff did not enforce the law, and the mall provided ashtrays for visitor’s use and therefore encouraged cigarette smoking.
A customer sued a restaurant for damages caused to her by exposure to second hand smoking while dining at the restaurant. At the time, the restaurant had insufficient signs prohibiting smoking, restaurant staff did not enforce the smoke free law, and ashtrays were provided on the tables. In a small claims procedure, the court awarded the customer full compensation allowed by law in order to deter business' owners from allowing customers to smoke.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Jerusalem District Court that denied the applicant leave to appeal a Small Claims Court decision. The Supreme Court held that the Restriction of Smoking in Public Places Law does not provide for compensation without proving damage. Noting that it is difficult to prove damage from an incident of smoking and that the statutory breach here impacted a family including children and a pregnant mother, the Court held that there are grounds "for giving a stronger emphasis to the damage, for the purposes of deterrence" and awarded the applicant additional compensation.
One moment. Loading results.
Phone: (202) 296-5469
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a Guidestar Exchange Gold
Shop at AmazonSmile and
Amazon will make a donation to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
© 2022 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy
Site created and maintained by