The Constitutional Court (AYM) has announced its reasons for rejecting the annulment request related to the wildlife law.
The Republican People's Party (CHP) applied to the Constitutional Court to annul the amendments to the Animal Protection Law Amendment Law No. 7527 and the Animal Protection Law No. 5199, arguing that they were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court rejected the request on the agenda of the General Assembly on May 7.
In the decision of the Constitutional Court published in the Official Gazette, it was reminded that with the amendment in paragraph 1 of Article 3 of Law No. 5199, the possibility of caring for stray animals without establishing a relationship of ownership was eliminated and these animals were taken to nursing homes and kept in nursing homes until they were adopted.
The decision states that the regulation in question is “aimed at eliminating the risks that stray pets may pose to the health and physical integrity of humans” and emphasizes that the regulation is a requirement of the right to life and the right to protect the physical and spiritual existence of humans.
The decision stated that eliminating the practice of keeping dogs without adoption would contribute to eliminating dangers to human life and physical integrity, and pointed out that the legislator has complete discretion in this matter.
In the decision it was stated that rehabilitation procedures would be carried out in these nursing homes by preventing dangers and damages caused by stray animals, and said: “It has been judged that adopting the practice of bringing stray animals to nursing homes and keeping them there until they are adopted does not conflict with the positive duty arising from the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment.” statements were included.
In the decision, regarding the regulation regarding “the application of euthanasia under certain conditions” to dogs placed in nursing homes, “The application of euthanasia to homeless dogs must be evaluated within the framework of the positive obligations imposed on the state by the obligation to prepare the necessary conditions for the development of the material and spiritual life of humans, the right to the environment and the right to protect and develop the material and spiritual existence of people. human”. reviews have been included.
In the decision emphasizing the need to protect human health and physical integrity, it was reminded that this rule stipulates that euthanasia measures must be applied in particular when certain conditions exist.
“Does not conflict with legal principles on crime and punishment”
In the decision of the Constitutional Court, it was emphasized that local authorities are obliged to take the necessary administrative measures regarding stray dogs, and in carrying out this obligation, local authorities “are obliged to choose the measure that causes the least harm to the animals”.
In the decision, it was reminded that “the state has a positive obligation” regarding the provision that “mayors and municipal officials who fail to allocate the necessary resources to collect stray animals and who fail to make efforts to establish nursing homes, collect, rehabilitate or care for stray animals until they are adopted shall be punished with imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years.”
In the decision stating that criminal regulations are introduced for the purpose of “deterrence”, the specific actions and phenomena for which the people involved are criminally handled as well as the level and form of punishment applied are clearly stated: “There is nothing contrary to the legal principles of crime and punishment”. expression was used.
“The prison sentence is suitable for the purpose achieved”
“It is very important that the financial resources prescribed by law be allocated and spent by local authorities in accordance with their purposes to establish animal care facilities and carry out activities such as feeding, shelter and rehabilitation there.” In the evaluated decision, it was noted that the imposition of imprisonment for those who do not comply with this regulation is appropriate to the objective to be achieved.
Reminding that the state has criminal discretion, the decision emphasizes that there is no constitutional impediment to prescribing punishments of deprivation of liberty for acts that do not cause actual harm to human health and physical integrity but present a clear and imminent risk of harm.
In the decision it was stated that it cannot be said that contemplating the penalty of deprivation of liberty for acts contemplated within the prescribed scope is unnecessary in view of the legitimate purpose to be achieved.
