The “Stray and Dangerous Animals” circular, which animal rights advocates have long opposed, has been overturned by the judiciary. Ruling that the regulation was unlawful, the Council of State of Turkey took a critical step in safeguarding the right to life of street animals.
The courts have annulled the long-controversial “Stray and Dangerous Animals” circular concerning street animals. Following a lawsuit filed by the Turkey Animal Protection Foundation, the 10th Chamber of the Council of State ruled that the circular issued by the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change was unlawful and cancelled it. With this decision, the regulation—one that directly affected the right to life of street animals—has been repealed. Objections raised for a long time by animal rights advocates have thus found recognition at the judicial level.
Erman Paçalı, President of the Turkey Animal Protection Foundation, announced on his social media account that the case had been accepted. Paçalı stated: “The judiciary has put a stop to unlawful actions taken by unauthorized administrations over animals. The protection of animals cannot be left to the arbitrariness of the administration.”
What Did the Controversial Regulation Introduce?
From the day it was published, the circular drew strong criticism from advocates of the right to life and from legal professionals. The regulation was said to pave the way for street animals to be collected and confined to shelters, removed from their natural habitats, and often kept under inadequate conditions. In particular, the classification of certain breeds as “dangerous,” the stigmatization of animals solely on the basis of their breed, and their subjection to 24/7 monitoring brought accusations of discrimination and arbitrariness. Critics argued that the circular aimed less at protecting animals and more at excluding them from public life.
Lawyers Criticize “Exceeding Authority”
Comprising 17 articles, the circular also sparked serious debate in legal circles. It was argued that the regulation went beyond the duties and powers defined by Law No. 5199 on the Protection of Animals and Law No. 5393 on Municipalities, and that it imposed new and binding obligations on municipalities through an administrative circular. This was assessed as a clear case of “exceeding authority.” Moreover, the circular’s statement that legal and criminal liability could be imposed on municipalities failing to fulfill their duties was also criticized, with reminders that criminal liability can only be regulated by law. The vagueness and unclear boundaries of the phrase “animals posing a danger” were cited as grounds for the lawsuit, on the basis that they opened the door to arbitrary practices and threatened both legal certainty and the right to life of animals.
