On May 7, 2025, Turkey’s Constitutional Court made a landmark decision: it rejected an appeal to annul significant parts of the Animal Protection Law (Law No. 7527, an amendment to the Animal Protection Law No. 5199) that had been passed in August 2024. The amended law requires municipalities to capture stray dogs and relocate them into shelters, where they are to be vaccinated, neutered, and made available for adoption. Dogs deemed “dangerous,” terminally ill, or otherwise a health risk may be euthanized under certain conditions. 

The law has been highly controversial, not least because of concerns over animal welfare, constitutional rights, the authority of municipalities, and the feasibility of enforcement. Animal rights activists, opposition political parties (notably the Republican People’s Party, CHP), bar associations, and NGOs have all raised strong objections — arguing that the law violates the right to life, animal rights, and international standards on animal protection. 

Key Provisions of the Law & Legal Challenge

Some of the core provisions of the amended law are:

• Municipalities must collect stray dogs and place them into shelters. 

• The animals are to be vaccinated, spayed/neutered, or otherwise treated, and then made available for adoption.

• Dogs assessed as dangerous, terminally ill, infectious, or posing risk to human health or other animals may be euthanized under veterinary supervision. 

• Municipalities are given until 2028 to build or improve shelter infrastructure and to ensure capacity for caring for stray animals. 

The CHP’s legal challenge sought to annul 16 of the law’s 17 articles, arguing that those articles violate constitutional protections — especially the right to life — and that there is insufficient funding and infrastructure to meet the obligations the law imposes. There was also concern that vague language around “dangerous” behaviors or conditions could make euthanasia too loosely applied. 

Court’s Decision & Rationale

The Constitutional Court, in its ruling, dismissed both the request for immediate suspension of the law and the petition to annul its contested articles. Some articles were rejected unanimously; others by majority. The Court’s official reasoning for each article has not yet been fully published. 

In doing so, the Court affirmed that the law, in its amended form, is legally valid. It effectively held that municipal responsibilities under the law do not violate constitutional provisions. It also signaled that the law must be implemented in full. While the Court recognized the concerns, it appears to believe the legal framework, together with veterinary oversight and procedural requirements, provide sufficient safeguard to justify the law’s existence.

Criticisms, Concerns & Risks

Despite the Court’s decision, critics remain deeply concerned about:

1. Animal Welfare: Whether shelters will meet humane standards, capacity will be enough, and whether euthanasia will be applied too broadly or improperly. Given that there are millions of stray dogs and far fewer shelter spots, overcrowding, disease, and neglect are real risks. 

2. Implementation and Funding: The law relies heavily on municipalities’ capacity to build or upgrade shelters, run vaccination/neutering campaigns, and manage large-scale animal welfare operations. If the resources are not sufficiently allocated, there could be a gap between what the law mandates and what can actually be done.

3. Vagueness and Potential Abuse: Terms like “dangerous behavior,” “terminal illness,” “risk to human health” are not always clearly defined. There is concern that some municipalities might interpret them broadly to justify euthanasia that might otherwise be avoidable. Also, oversight mechanisms may be weak. 

4. Public Trust and Social Impact: For many Turks, stray dogs are part of daily life—some are cared for by communities. The law has raised emotional, ethical, and political debates, including accusations that the law criminalizes compassion and increases social tension, especially in poorer areas where stray animals are more visible. Public sentiment is divided. 

What This Decision Means Moving Forward

• Legal Obligation to Comply: Municipalities are now legally bound to implement all the law’s provisions — including capturing, sheltering, vaccination/neutering, and possibly euthanasia under the stated conditions. The Constitutional Court’s decision removes constitutional uncertainty about the law’s validity. 

• Increased Oversight and Reporting: With legal validity affirmed, more attention will be paid to how local governments carry out their duties. Civil society, NGOs, and opposition authorities will likely monitor implementation closely. Any deviations, neglect, or abuse could become subject to legal challenge.

• Risk of Judicial Challenges: Although the Court rejected the current annulment petition, affected parties may continue to bring cases, such as individual actions based on specific abuses, or challenge procedural failings in implementation.

• Potential for Policy Adjustments: Given the criticisms, the law may see future amendments or implementing regulations aimed at clarifying ambiguous terms, strengthening animal welfare safeguards, defining oversight procedures, or increasing funding requirements.

• International Scrutiny: International bodies and NGOs will likely continue to monitor Turkey’s compliance with global animal welfare standards, and this could have implications for international relations, funding, or civil society engagement.

Legal Takeaways & Advice for Stakeholders

For individuals, NGOs, or municipalities impacted by this law:

• Review Local Municipal Plans & Policies: If you are in a municipality, check whether local government has plans to build shelters, provide veterinary services, or start adoption programs.

• Document Conditions & Incidents: NGOs and citizens should document shelter conditions, any euthanasia cases, or suspected misuse of the law. Such documentation could be used in legal complaints.

• Seek Legal Advice if Affected: If you believe a municipality is acting beyond the law, harming animals in violation of veterinary or welfare standards, or wrongly applying euthanasia, consult with legal professionals about possible remedies.

• Engage in Municipal Oversight: Citizens and advocacy groups can participate in oversight, public transparency, and even bring lawsuits or bar association complaints if local authorities fail in their legal responsibilities.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court’s decision to uphold the stray dog law marks a pivotal moment in Turkish animal protection law. Legally, it affirms the state’s power to introduce strict measures in order to balance public safety, health, and animal welfare. Practically, however, the law’s success will be measured in its implementation—whether municipalities can meet the law’s demands, whether animal welfare is maintained, and whether abuses are prevented.

For many, this law remains controversial—not because of its intent, but because of real concerns about capacity, oversight, and humane treatment. As the law is rolled out, continuous monitoring, public engagement, and potential legal challenges will play a crucial role in shaping how it affects stray animals, municipal practices, and Turkey’s reputation on animal rights.