What the Danıştay Decision Means for Municipalities and Stray Dogs
Turkey’s highest administrative court, Danıştay, issued a landmark ruling that quietly but decisively reshaped the legal landscape for how municipalities may act toward stray animals.
At its core, the decision cancelled a 2021 ministerial circular that had long been used to justify widespread animal collection practices. The implications are immediate, practical, and highly significant not only for local authorities, but for anyone working to protect animals on the ground.
A Circular That No Longer Exists Legally
The cancelled document was a General Circular on Stray and Dangerous Animals, issued in December 2021 by the Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change.
Municipalities across the country relied on this circular to:
justify mass collection of animals,
frame stray animals as inherent risks,
bypass individual assessment requirements.
Danıştay ruled that the circular was unlawful from the outset because it was issued by a ministry that no longer had legal authority over animal protection matters.
As a result, the circular is now null and void. It cannot be relied upon, cited, or enforced.
What Changes for Municipalities Right Now
“We were instructed to do this” is no longer a defence
Municipalities can no longer claim that controversial actions toward animals were carried out under binding ministerial instruction.
The court has made it clear:
an instruction issued without authority has no legal value.
Any municipal action that depends on the cancelled circular now stands on extremely weak legal ground.
Blanket animal collection has lost its legal cover
The circular functioned as a shortcut allowing broad, area-wide animal collection without individualised justification.
With its cancellation:
each intervention must now be justified directly under the law,
mass or preventive collection practices are far easier to challenge,
and municipalities must demonstrate specific necessity, not general fear.
This is a critical shift from policy-by-habit to action-by-law.
Stray does not mean dangerous
One of the court’s most important observations concerned language.
By grouping “stray” and “dangerous” animals together, the circular created a perception that animals without owners are inherently threatening. Danıştay rejected this framing.
Practically, this means:
municipalities cannot presume risk,
danger must be individual, concrete, and demonstrable,
and fear-based justifications are legally vulnerable.
Only one authority can now issue binding rules
The ruling confirms that only the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry may issue regulations governing animal protection.
Municipalities are therefore limited to:
the Animal Protection Law (Law No. 5199),
valid regulations issued by the competent ministry,
and actions clearly permitted by law.
They are not permitted to rely on circulars, letters, or informal guidance from unauthorised bodies.
Legal exposure has increased significantly
If a municipality continues to act as if the cancelled circular still exists, it risks:
annulment of its actions by administrative courts,
stay-of-execution orders,
and potential personal responsibility for officials involved.
This ruling removes the protective shield municipalities previously relied upon.
What the Decision Does Not Do
It is important to be clear.
The ruling does not prevent municipalities from:
treating injured or sick animals,
operating shelters and clinics,
intervening in proven, individual danger cases,
or fulfilling their lawful duties under existing legislation.
What it prevents is the replacement of law with convenience.
Why This Decision Matters Beyond the Courtroom
This is not just a technical ruling.
It:
restores the hierarchy of law over practice,
limits arbitrary or fear-driven interventions,
strengthens legal challenges by citizens and organisations,
and reasserts that animal protection policy must follow due process.
For advocates, this decision is a powerful tool.
For municipalities, it is a warning.
For animals, it is a rare and meaningful legal safeguard.
Conclusion
Danıştay’s decision does not introduce new rights it enforces existing ones.
By cancelling an unlawful circular, the court has reminded all public authorities of a simple rule:
Power must come from law or it does not exist at all.
That principle now governs municipal action toward animals, here and now.