Israel
Title | Summary |
---|---|
IL - Cruelty - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS LAW (ANIMAL PROTECTION) |
|
IL - Cruelty - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS REGULATIONS (ANIMAL PROTECTION) (GEESE FORCEFEEDING) |
|
IL - Farming - The Animal Welfare Regulations, Raising Pigs and Keeping Them for Agricultural Purposes), 2015 | |
Let the Animals Live Assiciation;et al. v. Israel Institute of Technology et al. | 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. |
Let the Animals Live Assiciation;et al. v. Israel Institute of Technology et al. (in Hebrew) | 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. |
Let the Animals Live v. Hamat Gader | |
Let the Animals Live v. Hamat Gader Recreation Enterprises |
|
Noah v. Attorney General |
|