Results
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8
Title |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| IL - Cruelty - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS LAW (ANIMAL PROTECTION) | CRUELTY TO ANIMALS LAW (ANIMAL PROTECTION), 5754-1994 |
This law represents Isreal's anti-cruelty law. The law provides that no person shall torture, treat cruelly or in any way abuse any animal. It also states that no person shall incite one animal against another or organise a contest between animals. The cutting into live tissue of an animal for cosmetic purposes is also prohibited. |
Statute |
| IL - Cruelty - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS REGULATIONS (ANIMAL PROTECTION) (GEESE FORCEFEEDING) | CRUELTY TO ANIMALS REGULATIONS (ANIMAL PROTECTION) (GEESE FORCEFEEDING), |
The purpose of these Regulations is to prevent the suffering of geese while being force-fed and fattened in order to produce goose liver (fois gras), and to halt the further expansion of the goose liver production's sector in Israel. |
Statute |
| IL - Farming - The Animal Welfare Regulations, Raising Pigs and Keeping Them for Agricultural Purposes), 2015 | Animal Welfare Regulations 2015 | Attached are the Animal Welfare Regulations from 2015 on confined pigs, available in both English and Hebrew. These Israeli regulations ban the use of gestation crates without exception (isolation is allowed for up to a week for insemination, but in a compartment wide enough to allow the sow to turn around) and farrowing crates are allowed only up to 2 weeks after the sow gave birth. | Statute |
| Let the Animals Live Assiciation;et al. v. Israel Institute of Technology et al. | No. 54789-12-11 (English version) | After pressures from multiple animal rights organizations, an Israeli airline stopped flying monkeys to Israeli research institutions. Multiple Israeli research institutions then filed suit, asking the court to present the airline with a permanent order to fly animals as per their requests, including monkeys, for bio-medical research purposes. In the present case, the question to be decided was whether to allow several animal protection organizations to be added to the claim (whether the airline was bound to fly animals for experiments or not) as defendants or as amicus curiae. The court held that the animal protection organizations should be allowed to join the proceedings as defendants because they could bring before the court a more complete picture of the issue before it was decided; they filed their request at a very early stage; and they spoke and acted for the animals in the face of a verdict that might directly affect the legal rights of the animals. | Case |
| Let the Animals Live Assiciation;et al. v. Israel Institute of Technology et al. (in Hebrew) | No. 54789-12-11 (Hebrew version) | After pressures from multiple animal rights organizations, an Israeli airline stopped flying monkeys to Israeli research institutions. Multiple Israeli research institutions then filed suit, asking the court to present the airline with a permanent order to fly animals as per their requests, including monkeys, for bio-medical research purposes. In the present case, the question to be decided was whether to allow several animal protection organizations to be added to the claim (whether the airline was bound to fly animals for experiments or not) as defendants or as amicus curiae. The court held that the animal protection organizations should be allowed to join the proceedings as defendants because they could bring before the court a more complete picture of the issue before it was decided; they filed their request at a very early stage; and they spoke and acted for the animals in the face of a verdict that might directly affect the legal rights of the animals. | Case |
| Let the Animals Live v. Hamat Gader | LCA 1684/96 | The petitioner, an organization for the protection of animal rights, petitioned the magistrate court to issue an injunction against the respondents, which would prohibit the show they presented, which included a battle between a man and an alligator. The magistrate court held that the battle in question constituted cruelty to animals, which was prohibited under section 2 of the Cruelty to Animals Law (Protection of Animals)-1994. The respondents appealed this order to the district court, which cancelled the injunction. The petitioners requested leave to appeal this decision to this Court. The Court held that the show in question constituted cruelty against animals, as prohibited under section 2 of the Cruelty to Animals Law (Protection of Animals)-1994. | Case |
| Let the Animals Live v. Hamat Gader Recreation Enterprises | LCa 1684?96 |
Court held that holding a fighting match between a human and an alligator was a violation of the Israel Anti-Cruelty laws. |
Case |
| Noah v. Attorney General | appeal 9232/01 |
Court held that the forsed feeding of geese for making foie Gras was a violation of the laws of Israel.(In Hebrew)( English language .pdf - translated by CHAI) |
Case |