https://www.haytap.org/tr/feeding-of-strays-cannot-be-banned-ankara-administrative-court-verdict-2026
Feeding of Strays cannot be banned. Ankara Administrative Court Verdict-2026
Ankara 23rd Administrative Court,
Judgment No. 2026/1406
REPUBLIC OF TÜRKİYE ANKARA
23rd ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
CASE NO: 2025/1916
VERDICT NO: 2026/1406
CLAIMANTS:
1- Haytap Animal Rights Federation
REPRESENTATIVE: Att. Ahmet Kemal Şenpolat
2- Ahmet Kemal Şenpolat ( as a citizen )
DEFENDANTS:
1- Ankara Governorship
2- General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks
DATE OF ACTION: 26/12/2025
DATE OF VERDICT: 15/09/2026
SUBJECT OF THE ACTION: The claimants seek annulment of the administrative act dated 22/12/2025 and numbered [blank], rejecting the application made on 20/11/2025 for the annulment of the article of the decision taken by the Ankara Provincial Animal Protection Board at its meeting of 03/11/2025 concerning the "prohibition of feeding animals."
SUMMARY OF THE CLAIM AND THE DEFENCE:
For the claimants, in summary: that the Board decision forming the subject of the action is a decision contrary to statute and incompatible with the Boards duties and purpose of establishment, restricting personal rights and freedoms; that the decision aims to prevent animals from being fed on the streets in any way whatsoever; however, since the shelters throughout Ankara lack the capacity to take in and feed all stray animals, it is obvious that animals unable to find food over time will begin searching the streets for food and will attack people, and that animals left hungry in rural areas will attack the livestock of people who make their living from animal husbandry; that the decision is defective as to subject matter, competence and form; that the administrative act forming the subject of the action is unlawful; and that a decision should be given in line with the request.
For the defendant General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks, in summary: that a similar action previously brought against the decision of the Ankara Provincial Animal Protection Board, registered under case no. 2025/1720 before the Ankara 15th Administrative Court, has been decided; that following the stay-of-execution decision given in that file, a new regulation was made by a decision of the Ankara Governorship Provincial Animal Protection Board in accordance with the court decision; that an annulment action has also been brought on the same subject under the file of the Ankara 5th Administrative Court, E:2026/19; that this action, brought on the same subject, should be dismissed on grounds of lis pendens (derdestlik), lack of legal standing (husumet yokluğu) and lapse of time; and on the merits, that the Board decision whose annulment is sought contains nothing contrary to the Constitution, to Law No. 5199 on the Protection of Animals and the related legislation, or to international conventions; that, proceeding from the principle "the places where feeding is carried out become owned, the territories that are owned are defended," the Board decision forming the subject of the action — taken in order to prevent stray dog attacks from being caused, and also to prevent uncontrolled, unhygienic materials and all kinds of pathogenic microorganisms from reproducing and attracting other living creatures into the environment (such as rats and pests), and to prevent feed and food scraps dumped for animal-feeding purposes at the edges of motorways and ring roads and at times on connecting ramps from posing a threat to traffic — in short, to prevent threat to the health of both the fed animal and the public, contains no unlawfulness; that the administrative act forming the subject of the action is lawful; and that the action should be dismissed.
For the defendant Ankara Governorship: no statement of defence was submitted.
IN THE NAME OF THE TURKISH NATION
By the Ankara 23rd Administrative Court, which gave the decision: after the hearing held on 07/09/2026, previously scheduled and announced to the parties, it was seen that Att. Seda Yazıcı attended on behalf of the claimant Federation under the authority certificate issued by the Federations representative; that claimant Ahmet Kemal Şenpolat did not attend; that Att. Semra Güray and Att. Merve Yerlikaya Uysal attended on behalf of the defendant administrations; and after the hearing, duly conducted, the case file was examined and the matter was considered:
MATERIAL EVENT:
From the examination of the case file, it is understood that:
By decision dated 06/11/2025 and numbered 2025-50, the Ankara Governorship Provincial Animal Protection Board took decisions aimed at "preventing the uncontrolled feeding of street animals";
Thereupon, the claimants applied on 20/11/2025 to the General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks, seeking the removal of Article 4, headed "Prevention of uncontrolled feeding," of the decision of the Ankara Governorship Provincial Animal Protection Board dated 06/11/2025 and numbered 2025/50, which provided: "In order to prevent uncontrolled feeding points from endangering the life and property safety of citizens and environmental and public health, [the decision] that they be removed by the relevant Municipality. That uncontrolled feeding of stray dogs in public spaces be prohibited, and that, where detected, an administrative sanction be imposed pursuant to Article 32 of the Misdemeanours Law";
Upon rejection of the application by reply letter dated 22/12/2025, the current action was brought seeking annulment of the said rejection act.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION:
Article 1 of Law No. 5199 on the Protection of Animals, headed "Purpose," provides: "The purpose of this Law is, provided that human, animal and environmental health are safeguarded, to ensure that animals live comfortably and are treated well and appropriately, to protect them in the best manner against suffering pain, torment and cruelty, and to prevent all kinds of victimisation."
Article 3(f), headed "Definitions," provides: "Stray animal: domestic animals other than owned animals …"
Article 4(a), (c) and (g), headed "Principles," provides: "a) All animals are born equal and have the right to live within the framework of the provisions of this Law … c) Necessary measures must be taken for the protection, care, maintenance and keeping of animals away from ill-treatment … g) In the protection of animals and the ensuring of their comfortable lives, the hygiene, health and safety of humans and other animals must also be taken into account."
Article 6, headed "Protection of stray and weakened animals," provides: "The killing of stray or weakened animals is prohibited, save for the legal exceptions … Stray or weakened animals must be taken as quickly as possible to animal shelters established or authorised by local administrations. These animals are first to be kept in observation units to be established in the said centres. (Amended final sentence: 30/7/2024-7527/4 Art.) Animals taken into shelters are recorded in the Ministrys data system, and rehabilitated dogs are housed in animal shelters until they are rehomed."
Article 14(a), headed "Prohibitions," provides: "To deliberately treat animals badly, (…) to beat them, to leave them hungry and thirsty, to expose them to excessive cold and heat, to neglect their care, to inflict physical and psychological suffering."
Additional Article 1, headed "Responsibility of local administrations," provides: "Metropolitan municipalities, provincial municipalities and municipalities with a population exceeding twenty-five thousand shall establish animal shelters in order to protect stray or weakened or dangerous animals and to ensure their care until they are rehomed and their rehabilitation. The animals specified in the first paragraph are taken to the animal shelter by the relevant municipalities. Municipalities not obliged to establish an animal shelter and provincial special administrations shall take such animals within their area of responsibility to the nearest animal shelter. (Amended third and fourth sentences: 30/7/2024-7527/13 Art.) Animals taken into shelters are recorded in the Ministrys data system. Rehabilitated dogs are housed in animal shelters until they are rehomed. (Amended: 30/7/2024-7527/13 Art.) In respect of metropolitan municipalities, provincial municipalities and municipalities with a population exceeding twenty-five thousand, a prison sentence of six months to two years shall be imposed on the mayor and council members who do not allocate the resource specified in the second paragraph of Provisional Article 4, and on the mayor and municipal officials who do not spend the allocated resource on establishing animal shelters, collecting stray animals, rehabilitating them or caring for them until they are rehomed, or who spend this resource for other purposes."
Provisional Article 4 provides: "Metropolitan municipalities, provincial municipalities and municipalities with a population exceeding twenty-five thousand are obliged, until 31/12/2028, to establish the animal shelters specified in the first paragraph of Additional Article 1 and to improve the conditions of existing shelters. Municipalities shall, until 31/12/2028, allocate resources at the rate of five per thousand of their most recent finalised budget revenues in order to establish animal shelters under the first paragraph, carry out rehabilitation procedures and care for stray animals until they are rehomed. This rate is applied as three per thousand in metropolitan municipalities. Appropriations allocated under this paragraph cannot be used for another purpose. Forty per cent of the expenditures made by municipalities above the rates specified in the second paragraph of this article shall be transferred to the relevant municipality by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance, provided that it is documented. However, the amount to be transferred may in no case exceed forty per cent of the rates specified in the second paragraph. The procedures and principles regarding the implementation of this paragraph shall be determined by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance. Cat and dog owners must have their animals registered by means of digital identification methods by 31/12/2025 at the latest."
LEGAL ASSESSMENT:
It is understood that Law No. 5199, together with the amendments made to that Law by Law No. 7524, abolished the possibility of caring for stray street animals without establishing an ownership relationship, and provided for such animals to be taken into shelters and kept in shelters until they are rehomed; and that the legal regulation, evidently provided for the purpose of eliminating the risks that stray domestic animals may pose to human health and bodily integrity, is a requirement of the right to life and the right to the protection of a persons material and moral existence, and is also directed at meeting the need arising from individuals right to live in a healthy and balanced environment; and that, in particular, the abolition of the possibility of caring for dogs without their being owned and the housing of such animals in shelters until they are rehomed falls within the scope of the States obligation to take the measures required for a healthy and balanced environment.
Although the positive obligation of the State and the relevant administrations in the management of the stray animal population requires the full implementation of methods such as sterilisation, vaccination, rehabilitation, the construction of shelters and the improvement of existing shelter conditions, when our countrys current situation on the matter is assessed, it is seen that carrying out the regulation for stray dogs to be kept in shelters by local administrations until they are rehomed — both the construction of a sufficient number of shelters with the necessary infrastructure and superstructure and the improvement of the conditions of existing shelters, and the carrying out of collection activities — requires a certain period of time; that, indeed, in the legislation set out above a transitional period has been envisaged on this point and time has been given to the relevant local administrations; and that, while the administration takes the necessary measures in respect of human, animal and environmental health, this transitional process must also be taken into account.
By the regulation introduced by the contested Article 4 of the Ankara Provincial Animal Protection Board decision, feeding activities are completely prohibited. However, considering the existence of the transitional process mentioned above within the scope of the relevant legislation, the administration may lay down measures and restrictions aimed at "disciplining" and "bringing under control" feeding points and feeding behaviours, and ensuring the creation of controlled feeding areas, in order to remove the concrete risks created by "uncontrolled and haphazard" feeding; the creation of controlled feeding areas would ensure that animals nutritional needs are met under the supervision of the competent authorities, in hygienic conditions, with regular and healthy food, thereby preventing animals from going hungry and enabling rehabilitation processes to be carried out more healthily. Conversely, the preference in the contested regulation, instead of more limited measures such as regulating feeding activities as to place and time, determining feeding conditions and feeding products, or subjecting them to hygiene conditions, during the transitional process of taking stray animals into shelter care, of the disproportionate and immoderate method of "prohibition" is clearly not fully consistent with the protective purpose of the Law.
Furthermore, as required by the "principle of definiteness," one of the fundamental elements of the rule of law, the boundaries of conduct constituting the basis for an administrative sanction must be drawn clearly and without allowing any doubt. There is no clear definition in the legal legislation of what concrete acts the expression "uncontrolled feeding" appearing in the decision covers, and it is considered that this may lead to different interpretations and uncertainties in practice.
In this case, while the feeding of stray animals is an inseparable part of public order and public health, the administration has the authority to make regulations in this field, and in making regulations aimed at controlling or restricting stray animals in residential areas, a reasonable and equitable balance must be sought between constitutional values, on the one hand ensuring individuals right to life and security and the protection of the environment, and on the other hand designing matters in a way that protects the life and welfare of animals. Since it is not possible to accept that the regulation made directly in the form of a prohibition — without providing for any limited measure (such as regulating feeding activities as to place and time, determining feeding conditions and feeding products, or subjecting them to hygiene conditions) until the legislative provision regarding stray dogs being taken into shelter care is fully implemented — is a lawful, rational, definite, proportionate administrative act consistent with the public interest, it has been concluded that the contested Article 4 of the Board decision, and the act rejecting the application made for the annulment of the said article, are unlawful.
Indeed, the decision of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 9th Administrative Case Division, dated 14/01/2026 and numbered YD Objection No: 2026/21, concerning the same matter, is also in this direction.
JUDGMENT:
For the reasons explained;
ANNULMENT OF THE CONTESTED ACT,
Of the litigation costs of 2,732.20-TL incurred by the claimant and itemised below, and of the attorneys fee of 40,000-TL determined for cases with hearings under the Minimum Attorneys Fee Tariff in force on the date of the decision, [the amounts] to be taken from the defendant administrations and given to the claimants;
If the surplus postal fee was not requested earlier, that it be returned to the claimants of its own motion after the decision becomes final
That, within 30 (thirty) days from the day following service of the decision, the remedy of appeal (istinaf) is open, by petition to be submitted to this Court to be sent to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court, or to the places specified in Article 4 of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure, to be sent to this Court; the decision being given unanimously on 15/09/2026.
President JUDGE FD
Member JUDGE
Member JUDGE
