A Reminder Not to Forget Our Friends on the Streets: Information and Opinion on the Amendment of the Law on the Protection of Animals

I. Introduction

Recently, the government has taken action against stray dogs, which are allegedly increasing in number and posing a danger to public health, in light of some unfortunate incidents reported in the news. A bill proposing amendments to Law No. 5199 on the Protection of Animals ("Law") was submitted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly ("Parliament").

This Amendment, known publicly as the “culling law,” was submitted to the General Assembly for approval after passing through the Parliamentary Commission, despite the justified and strong reactions from animal lovers, animal rights activists, and non-governmental organizations. The Amendment was adopted by a majority in the General Assembly and entered into force by being published in the Official Gazette No. 32604, dated 02.08.2024, as the Law on Amending the Animal Protection Law No. 7527 ("Amendment").

The full Turkish text of the Amendment is available here.

With this publication, we aim to refresh our awareness and hope regarding this matter, which is of vital importance for our friends on the streets, as it has been overshadowed by the busy agenda of our country, despite only 1.5 months having passed since the Amendment entered into force.

II. Changes Introduced by the Amendment

The first change introduced by the Amendment is the addition of the phrase “provided that human, animal, and environmental health is taken into consideration” to paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law. It appears that the lawmakers intend, through this phrase, to open the way for regulations that could run counter to the “protection” of animals in cases affecting human health.

Pursuant to Article 2 of the Amendment, the definitions of stray and controlled animals in subparagraphs (f) and (j) of Article 1 of the Law have also been changed. Animals that were previously referred to as controlled animals—"pets that are adopted by an individual, organization, institution, or legal entity, cared for, vaccinated, periodically checked for health, and registered in the Ministry's database"—are now defined as owned animals. The definition of stray animals has been tied to that of owned animals, with stray animals being defined as all animals not falling under the definition of owned animals.

The “freedom of stray animals to live in living conditions specific to their species,” which was included in subparagraph (k) of Article 1 of the Law, has been removed by the Amendment. It is clear that this removal attempts to significantly eliminate the “right to life” guarantee previously granted to stray animals.

On the other hand, the Amendment adds provisions to the Law that support the “adopting” of animals. For example, with Article 3 of the Amendment, the phrase “caring for or wishing to care for animals” in subparagraph (d) of Article 1 of the Law was changed to “wishing to adopt animals,” and the phrase “protecting stray animals” in subparagraph (j), which pertains to the duties of local governments, was changed to “caring for animals until they are adopted.” It is now evident that, contrary to its title, the Law will no longer serve the protection of animals but rather their adoption. The fate of animals that cannot be adopted, as seen in the rest of the text, is grim.

The provision in paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Law, which stated, “(...) it is forbidden to kill animals except in the cases stipulated by the Animal Health Police Law No. 3285,” has been amended to read, "(...) it is forbidden to kill animals except in cases of legal exceptions.” Article 13 of the Law outlines these exceptions, and the term “killing” in the article’s title has been changed to “euthanasia.”

The regulation stipulating that animals shall be registered in the Ministry's data system and taken to animal care homes after being observed and having their needs met (such as sterilization, care, treatment, etc.) was already included in paragraph 5 of Article 6 of the Law. In the rest of the paragraph, it is clear that the Amendment abandons this regulation for animals in general and introduces a special provision concerning stray dogs. The new paragraph 5 of Article 6 states that dogs registered in the system will stay in animal care homes until they are rehabilitated and adopted. The concept of "adoption" is further emphasized in paragraph 6, which specifies that people who wish to care for animals out of conscience, without commercial intent, will now be able to do so by establishing animal nursing homes and adopting animals. These individuals may be allocated land, buildings, and equipment by the administration.

III. The "Exceptions" that Kill

Paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the amended Law states that stray dogs that:

• pose a danger to the life and health of humans and animals and whose negative behavior cannot be controlled,
• have an infectious or incurable disease, or
• are prohibited from being adopted,

will be subject to the measure “specified in the third paragraph of Article 9 of the Veterinary Services, Plant Health, Food and Feed Law No. 5996, dated 11.06.2010.”

            This measure, in short, refers to the killing of dogs that meet any of these conditions by the authorities. The final paragraph of Article 13 adds the provision, “The principles and procedures regarding killing and euthanasia shall be determined by a regulation to be issued by the Ministry.”

IV. Liability Regulations for Individuals and Institutions

In the previous version of the Law, individuals who voluntarily took responsibility for stray animals in their neighborhoods were referred to as animal protection officers, and their duties were regulated. However, the legal status of these individuals has been abolished in the amended version of the Law with the repeal of Article 18. This amendment conveys the message that these individuals are no longer needed, clearly revealing the government's intent to remove stray animals from the streets.

With the additional articles revised by the Amendment, legal and criminal liabilities are envisaged for local authorities if they fail to fulfill their duties listed in the Law. Previously, animals that had completed their rehabilitation process were to be released back into their original environment, but now it is stipulated that dogs will remain in animal care homes until they are adopted.

The deadline for local authorities to establish animal care homes and improve the conditions of existing ones has been extended until 31.12.2028. The Amendment further regulates that “mayors and council members who do not allocate the resources specified in the Law for this work, and mayors and municipal officials who do not spend the allocated resources to establish animal care homes, collect, rehabilitate, or care for stray animals until they are adopted, or who use these resources for other purposes, shall be sentenced to imprisonment from six months to two years.”

Finally, the deadline for cat and dog owners to register their animals by digital identification methods has been set as 31.12.2025.

V. Application for Unconstitutionality

Reactions to the Amendment did not only come from the public but also from the political sphere. The main opposition party has, in response to the passing of the Amendment by the votes of the ruling party, following two days of discussions in the General Assembly of the Parliament, filed an abstract norm review application to the Constitutional Court on 15.08.2024 requesting the annulment of 16 out of 17 articles of the amended law and the suspension of its enforcement.

The Constitutional Court took the application into its agenda and conducted its preliminary examination on 05.09.2024. As a result of this review, the Court decided to proceed with a substantive examination of the case.

VI. Conclusion and Our Opinion on the Amendment

Following the public outcry over recent stray dog attacks that resulted in the deaths of citizens, including children, the government prepared the Amendment to the Law.

The Amendment caused significant reactions due to its provisions concerning the killing of animals. Even the public, which wanted the “stray dog problem” to be solved, expressed discomfort alongside animal rights activists and other non-governmental organizations, as they found the government's proposed solution to be inhumane and in violation of animal rights. Despite these concerns, the Amendment was passed by the Turkish Grand National Assembly, effectively sentencing many stray dogs to death.

The root of this issue, which has grown over the years due to the failure to enforce provisions in the previous version of the Law, lies in the negligence of the state and local authorities. The state's deviation from the "sterilize-vaccinate-let live" approach, its failure to adhere to the laws and regulations established from this perspective, and its lack of oversight over their enforcement should not result in the deaths of stray dogs, which are innocent by their very nature. We believe that the recent Amendment is both unjust and inhumane, and that a solution cannot be achieved by violating animals' right to life. We urgently call for the reassessment of this unfortunate Amendment to prevent the collection and killing of animals, which have already started to make headlines.

When we evaluate the compliance of the Amendment with the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the international instruments protecting animal rights to which Turkey is a party, it becomes evident that the Amendment is legally problematic in many respects. Pursuant to Article 90 of the Constitution, international agreements are part of domestic law and constitute constitutional norms. Turkey is a party to several international agreements protecting animal rights, including the Council of Europe's Convention on the Protection of Animals and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Although Turkey is not a party to the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights, this document is recognized as a universal standard for the protection of animal rights in all developed countries. The Amendment violates the animals' right to life, which is guaranteed by these international instruments.

Finally, even though the Amendment has entered into force, as the Acar Ergönen Family, we sincerely believe that the institutions and individuals who will implement this law can develop inspiring and creative approaches and practices that will save the lives of stray animals. Despite all the negative consequences brought by the Amendment, we believe that people of conscience can prevent the dire outcomes this Law may have on stray animals. As a state and society, we maintain our belief that more humane and animal rights-respecting days will come. In this regard, we are following with great hope the Constitutional Court's rulings on both the suspension of the Amendment’s enforcement and its annulment.

Acar Ergönen Attorney Partnership