Authored By: Gulici Karaaslan
University of Exeter
Introduction
On 2 August 2024, Türkiye enacted Law No 7527,[1] amending the existing Animal Protection Law No 5199 to mandate the mass collection and, where animals remain unadopted within a specific period, the systematic enthusiasm of stray dogs. This legislation is directed to an estimated population of four to six million stray animals, the amendment abolished the prior obligation to sterilise, vaccinate, and surrender strays to their origin location, supplanting it with a shelter-based system that commentators have described essentially as a structural pipeline to death.[2] With only 294 of Türkiye 1,394 municipalities operating shelters at the time of promulgation, and those provisions have widely reported issues of overcrowded environments and being under-resourced, the practical effect of the legislation has been mass extermination rather than humane management.
Türkiye is a signatory to the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals 1987 (ECPPA),[3] [4] having ratified it in 2003. That instrument creates enforceable obligations regarding the management of stray populations through the least harmful means available and to prioritise neutering over culling. This article disputed that Law No 7527 is incompatible with Türkiye duty under the ECPPA and with the animal welfare standards expected of a candidate under the European Union acquis communautaire;[5] and that the Comparative regulatory models adopted by Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands establish that effective and legally compliant alternatives exist. The article proceeds as follows. Section II sets out the applicable legal framework. Section III analyses the specific incompatibilities between Law No 7527 and Türkiye international duties. Section IV examines the EU comparative models. Section V proposes reform pathways through Council of Europe and EU accession mechanisms.
II. Legal Framework
A. The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals 1987
The ECPPA, executed under the auspices of the Council of Europe and opened for signature in Strasbourg on 13 November 1987, portrays the primary international instrument governing the welfare of companions and stray animals within Europe. Chapter III of the Convention, comprising Articles 12 and 13, is directly relevant to the management of stray animal populations. Article 12 provides that any stray animal shall be caught with the least amount of suffering possible.[6] Article 13(1) requires parties to reduce the number of stray animals without causing avoidable pain, suffering, or distress.[7] Crucially, Article 13(2) obliges parties to encourage the neutering of stray animals as the preferred method of population control.[8] These provisions are not aspirational; they impose binding obligations on all ratifying states, including Türkiye.
B. Türkiye’s Domestic Legal Framework: Law No 5199 and its Amendment
Law N0 5199, enacted in 2004, originally reflected the spirit of the ECPPA by requiring municipalities to sterilise, vaccinate and return stray animals to their place of origin.[9] This trap-neuter-return (TNR) model was broadly consistent with Türkiye’s treaty obligations. However, municipalities continually failed to implement the legislation due to inadequate funding and infrastructure therefore resulting in uncontrolled population volumes and growth that generated public safety concerns. Law No 7527, enacted on 30 July 2004, fundamentally altered this framework.[10] The amendment authorises the euthanasia of dogs held in shelters that are assessed as dangerous, seriously ill, or suffering from untreatable conditions, by cross-reference to the veterinary euthanasia provisions of Law No 5996.[11] More significantly, it removed the statutory obligation to return rehabilitated animals to their original environment, thereby eliminating the TNR mechanism that had formed the cornerstone of Türkiye’s stray management policy. In its place, the law mandates municipal collection and indefinite sheltering, with euthanasia as the default outcome where adoption does not occur within the prescribed period. The Turkish Constitutional Court upheld the principal provisions of the amended law in decisions rendered in 2025 and 2026, finding them consistent with the constitutional obligation of local governments to manage public health.[12] However, constitutional compatibility under domestic law does not resolve the question of compatibility with binding international treaty obligations, which operates on a separate legal plane.
III. International Obligations and the Incompatibility of Law No 7527
A. Violation of Articles 12 and 13 of the ECPPA
It is submitted that Law No 7527 is incompatible with Türkiye’s obligations under Articles 12 and 13 of the ECPPA on three grounds.
First, the amendment structurally displaces neutering as the primary method of population control. The ECPPA imposes a positive obligation on parties to encourage neutering; Article 13 is explicit that sterilisation programmes must be the instrument through which stray populations are reduced. Law No 7527, by removing the TNR mandate from Law No 5199 and substituting a collect-and-euthanise model, inverts this hierarchy. A state that formally dismantles its neutering infrastructure cannot credibly claim to be fulfilling its obligation to encourage neutering within the meaning of Article 13. Second, the conditions under which euthanasia is applied under Law No 7527 do not satisfy the requirement that population reduction be achieved without causing avoidable pain, suffering, or distress. The Ankara Bar Association, in its submission to the Constitutional Court, documented that hundreds of animals died in circumstances of avoidable suffering following the law’s implementation.[13] Reports of municipal poisoning of strays adopted where shelter capacity was absent represent not merely an administrative failure but a direct breach of the obligation to minimise suffering during capture and management.[14]
Third, the law generates a systemic condition of avoidable suffering by mandating collection into facilities that were demonstrably inadequate at the time of enactment. The legislative objective of humane management cannot be reconciled with a statutory framework that delivers animals into shelters incapable of sustaining them. The foreseeability of this outcome renders the suffering it produces legally avoidable within the meaning of Article 13.
B. EU Accession Obligations and the Acquis Communautaire
Türkiye has maintained candidate status for EU membership since 2005. As a candidate state, Türkiye is expected to progressively align its domestic legislative systems with the EU acquis communautaire, including in the field of animal welfare. The European Parliament raised this concern directly in Parliamentary Question E-001682/2025, which queried what measures Türkiye was taking to align its animal welfare legislation with EU standards as part of its accession obligations.[15] EU animal welfare standards, as reflected in Council Directive 98/58/EC and the evolving legislative proposals on the welfare and traceability of dogs and cats presented by the European Commission in December 2024, prohibit the mass culling of healthy animals and require member states to adopt mandatory neutering, microchipping, and registration as the principal instruments of companion animal population management.[16][17] Law No 7527 represents a legislative regression from these standards. Whilst Türkiye’s non-membership means that the acquis is not directly binding, the progressive alignment obligation inherent in the accession process creates a legal expectation that candidate states will not enact legislation that moves in the opposite direction from EU norms. The adoption of Law No 7527 is therefore not merely a domestic policy choice but a material factor in the assessment of Türkiye suitability for accession.
IV. Comparative Perspectives: EU Member State Models
A. Germany
Germany’s approach to stray animal management is grounded in the Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz) 1972, as amended, which prohibits the killing of any vertebrate animal without reasonable cause.[18] The killing of a healthy stray dog constitutes an offence under German law. Municipalities are required to shelter unclaimed animals indefinitely and to pursue adoption as the primary resolution. This framework has effectively eliminated street dog populations in Germany without recourse to culling, demonstrating that humane population control is achievable within a binding legal framework.[19]
B. Italy
Italy enacted its foundational no-kill framework through Law No 281 of 14 August 1991, which prohibits the euthanasia of stray dogs except where an animal is seriously ill, incurable, or proven dangerous.[20] The legislation mandates TNR as the standard management approach and assigns responsibility for sterilisation programmes to regional health authorities. Whilst implementation has been uneven across Italy’s regions, the legal framework itself provides a directly replicable model for a state such as Türkiye that faces large-scale stray populations. Critically, Italy’s experience demonstrates that a no-kill legislative commitment is compatible with effective long-term population reduction through sustained sterilisation.
C. The Netherlands
The Netherlands represents the most advanced model of humane stray management, having effectively eliminated street dog populations through a combination of legislative and behavioural interventions. The Dutch approach, governed by the Animal Health and Welfare Act (Wet dieren) 2011, focuses on human behaviour change: penalising abandonment and mistreatment, offering free sterilisation services, and deploying dedicated animal welfare police units.[21][22] The Netherlands operates without a stray dog problem not because it culls, but because it has addressed the upstream causes of irresponsible ownership and unregulated breeding through robust legal enforcement. This upstream regulatory model offers the most instructive lesson for Türkiye, the failure of Law No 5199 was not a failure of the TNR principle but a failure of enforcement and investment.
The experience of all three jurisdictions confirms the assessment of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), which endorses TNR combined with responsible ownership legislation as the only scientifically validated and ethically sound method of sustainable stray population control.[23] Mass culling, by contrast, has been consistently shown to produce only temporary reductions in stray populations while generating immediate and sustained animal suffering.[24][25]
V. Conclusion
This article has argued that Türkiye’s Law No 7527 of 2024 is incompatible with its binding obligations under Articles 12 and 13 of the ECPPA, and that its adoption constitutes a material regression from the animal welfare standards expected of a candidate state seeking accession to the European Union. The law structurally dismantles the neutering-based model mandated by the Convention, delivers animals into demonstrably inadequate conditions, and generates avoidable suffering on a systemic scale. The Constitutional Court’s validation of the law’s domestic legality does not resolve its incompatibility with Turkey’s international treaty obligations.
The comparative experience of Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands demonstrates unequivocally that effective stray population management is achievable through humane, legally compliant means. The failure of Türkiye’s prior TNR framework was one of implementation, not principle; and Law No 7527 responds to that failure with a measure that is simultaneously less effective as a long-term solution and directly contrary to Türkiye’s international legal commitments.
It is submitted that two reform pathways merit urgent pursuit. First, the Council of Europe’s Consultative Committee under the ECPPA should formally assess Türkiye’s compliance with the Convention and initiate diplomatic consultations aimed at legislative revision. Second, the European Commission should incorporate animal welfare alignment, with particular reference to the ECPPA framework, into its annual progress assessments of Türkiye’s accession candidacy. Meaningful progress in these mechanisms would require Türkiye to repeal or substantially amend Law No 7527, reinstate a funded national TNR programme, and invest in shelter infrastructure commensurate with the scale of its stray population. The legal framework for demanding such reform already exists, what is required is the political will to deploy it.
Bibliography
International Instruments
European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (opened for signature 13 November 1987, entered into force 1 May 1992) ETS No 125.
Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes [1998] OJ L221/23.
Statute of the Council of Europe (London, 5 May 1949) ETS No 1.
Legislation
Law No 5199 on Animal Protection (Turkey, 2004).
Law No 7527 amending Law No 5199 on Animal Protection (Turkey, 2024), published in the Official Gazette, 2 August 2024.
Law No 5996 on Veterinary Services, Plant Health, Food and Feed (Turkey, 2010).
German Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz) 1972 (as amended).
Italian Law No 281 of 14 August 1991 on the Protection of Companion Animals and the Prevention of Stray Animals.
Dutch Animal Health and Welfare Act (Wet dieren) 2011.
Cases and Decisions
Constitutional Court of Turkey, Decision No E.2024/146, K.2026/50 (26 February 2026), Official Gazette No 33253 (14 May 2026).
Parliamentary and Institutional Materials
European Parliament, Parliamentary Question E-001682/2025, ‘Turkish law that allows the killing of roaming dogs and cats’ (2025).
Ankara Bar Association, Submission to the Constitutional Court of Turkey concerning Law No 7527 (2024).
Organisation Internationale Protection Animaux (OIPA), Letter to the Constitutional Court of Türkiye (27 January 2025).
International Companion Animal Management Coalition (ICAM), ‘Humane Dog Population Management Guidance’ (2019).
World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH/OIE), ‘Stray Dog Population Control’ (Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Chapter 7.7).
Secondary Sources
DKND Law, ‘Amendment to the Animal Protection Law and Similar Practices Worldwide’ (29 January 2025) <https://dkndlaw.com/legal-alerts/amendment-to-the-animal-protection-law-and-similar-practices-worldwide/> accessed 22 June 2026.
Eurogroup for Animals, ‘Strays’ <https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/what-we-do/areas-of-concern/strays> accessed 22 June 2026.
Helsinki Animal Law Blog, ‘New Animal Protection Law in Turkey and the Situation of Dogs’ (12 February 2025) <https://blogs.helsinki.fi/animallawblogseries/2025/02/12/new-animal-protection-law-in-turkey-and-the-situation-of-dogs/> accessed 22 June 2026.
Humane World for Animals, ‘Statement on bill to kill street dogs and cats in Türkiye’ (30 July 2024) <https://www.humaneworld.org/en/news/statement-bill-kill-street-dogs-and> accessed 22 June 2026.
RSPCA, ‘Stray Animal Control Practices in Europe’ (2011).
University of Montpellier (B Açıkgöz and M Willinger), ‘License to Kill or Public Safety? A Controversial Law on Stray Dogs in Turkey’ <https://www.umontpellier.fr/en/articles/permis-de-tuer-ou-securite-publique-en-turquie-une-loi-controversee-sur-les-chiens-errants> accessed 22 June 2026.
World Animal Protection, ‘Netherlands Country Profile’ <https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/country/netherlands> accessed 22 June 2026.
Reference(S):
[1]Law No 7527 amending Law No 5199 on Animal Protection (Turkey, 2024), published in the Official Gazette, 2 August 2024.
[2]Helsinki Animal Law Blog, ‘New Animal Protection Law in Turkey and the Situation of Dogs’ (12 February 2025) <https://blogs.helsinki.fi/animallawblogseries/2025/02/12/new-animal-protection-law-in-turkey-and-the-situation-of-dogs/> accessed 22 June 2026.
[3]European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (opened for signature 13 November 1987, entered into force 1 May 1992) ETS No 125.
[4]Turkey ratified the ECPPA on 28 June 2003: Council of Europe Treaty Office, ‘Chart of Signatures and Ratifications of Treaty 125’ <https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/125/signatures> accessed 22 June 2026.
[5]University of Montpellier (B Açıkgöz and M Willinger), ‘License to Kill or Public Safety? A Controversial Law on Stray Dogs in Turkey’ <https://www.umontpellier.fr/en/articles/permis-de-tuer-ou-securite-publique-en-turquie-une-loi-controversee-sur-les-chiens-errants> accessed 22 June 2026.
[6]ECPPA (n 1) art 12.
[7]ibid art 13(1).
[8]ibid art 13(2).
[9]Law No 5199 on Animal Protection (Turkey, 2004).
[10]Law No 7527 (n 2).
[11]Law No 5996 on Veterinary Services, Plant Health, Food and Feed (Turkey, 2010) art 9.
[12]Constitutional Court of Turkey, Decision No E.2024/146, K.2026/50 (26 February 2026), Official Gazette No 33253 (14 May 2026).
[13]Ankara Bar Association, Submission to the Constitutional Court of Turkey concerning Law No 7527 (2024).
[14]Organisation Internationale Protection Animaux (OIPA), Letter to the Constitutional Court of Türkiye (27 January 2025).
[15]European Parliament, Parliamentary Question E-001682/2025, ‘Turkish law that allows the killing of roaming dogs and cats’ (2025).
[16]Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes [1998] OJ L221/23.
[17]Eurogroup for Animals, ‘Strays’ <https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/what-we-do/areas-of-concern/strays> accessed 22 June 2026.
[18]German Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz) 1972 (as amended) s 17.
[19]RSPCA, ‘Stray Animal Control Practices in Europe’ (2011) 14–15.
[20]Italian Law No 281 of 14 August 1991 on the Protection of Companion Animals and the Prevention of Stray Animals.
[21]Dutch Animal Health and Welfare Act (Wet dieren) 2011.
[22]World Animal Protection, ‘Netherlands Country Profile’ <https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/country/netherlands> accessed 22 June 2026.
[23]World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH/OIE), ‘Stray Dog Population Control’ (Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Chapter 7.7); International Companion Animal Management Coalition (ICAM), ‘Humane Dog Population Management Guidance’ (2019).
[24]Humane World for Animals, ‘Statement on bill to kill street dogs and cats in Türkiye’ (30 July 2024) <https://www.humaneworld.org/en/news/statement-bill-kill-street-dogs-and> accessed 22 June 2026.
[25]DKND Law, ‘Amendment to the Animal Protection Law and Similar Practices Worldwide’ (29 January 2025) <https://dkndlaw.com/legal-alerts/amendment-to-the-animal-protection-law-and-similar-practices-worldwide/> accessed 22 June 2026.
