Article 177 of the Turkish Penal Code: The Crime of Releasing an Animal in a Way That May Create Danger

1. Introduction

The Turkish Penal Code, aiming to maintain public order and the safety of individuals, punishes not only acts related to interpersonal relationships but also those that pose indirect dangers, such as the uncontrolled release of animals. In this context Article 177 of the Turkish Penal Coderegulates the crime of "releasing an animal in a way that may create danger."

Today, this crime comes to the forefront particularly aggressive dogs being left unleashed, dangerous breeds being allowed to roam freely , or animals being released with the intent to cause harm . This article will examine the elements of the crime, analyze them in light of ECHR and Supreme Court decisions, and discuss current problems and proposed solutions.

2. Legal Basis – Turkish Penal Code Article 177

Article 177 of the Turkish Penal Code is as follows:

"Anyone who releases an animal under their control in a manner that may endanger the life or health of others, or incites such an animal to act to the detriment of others, shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to three years ."

The purpose of this regulation is to prevent danger arising not from the animal acting directly as the perpetrator, but from the animal owner's or caretaker's breach of their duty of supervision

3. Elements of the Crime

3.1. Fail

The animal's owner,
The person temporarily assuming the responsibility of supervision (e.g., caregiver, neighbor),
Corporate officials (e.g., staff working at a municipal animal shelter).

3.2. Victim

Any individual in society,
People who could potentially be attacked by the animal.

3.3. Material Element

Releasing the animal (allowing it to roam unchecked),
Provoking the animal (directing it to attack others),
The danger must pose a tangible risk to life or health.

3.4. Spiritual Element

Intent is required. The perpetrator must knowingly and willingly release the animal, understanding that it could pose a danger.
It can be committed with possible intent or direct intent.

4. The ECHR Perspective

Although the European Court of Human Rights has not directly dealt with cases similar to those under Article 177 of the Turkish Penal Code, it has established similar principles in cases involving the state's obligation to protect individuals from the actions of third parties

Osman / United Kingdom (1998) decision, the failure of public authorities to prevent a known danger was considered a violation of the right to life.
Mastromatteo v. Italy (2002) decision, the failure of public authorities to exercise due diligence in preventing risk was deemed a violation in the context of the right to security.

This perspective is especially true when dangerous animals are left unchecked and municipalities fail to take precautions.

5. Examples of Supreme Court Decisions

In a case where a traffic accident resulting in only material damage occurred due to a large animal grazing on the side of an intercity highway wandering onto the road, the Supreme Court of Appeals stated that for the crime defined in Article 177 of the Turkish Penal Code to be constituted, there must be a concrete danger to the life or health of individuals. Since no such danger existed in this case, the act could not be evaluated within the scope of criminal law, and an administrative fine should be imposed according to the Highway Traffic Law. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 8th Criminal Chamber – Decision: 2015/24187)
In an incident where a stray cow wandered onto the highway, collided with a vehicle, and injured the driver and passenger, the Supreme Court of Appeals stated that both the crime of endangering and the crime of negligent injury could be considered, but that the crime of negligent injury should be prioritized based on the distinction between harm and danger. The defendant was found to be primarily at fault, and the victims' injuries were deemed to be treatable with simple medical intervention. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 12th Criminal Chamber – Decision: 2019/7167)
In a case where a dog in front of the defendant's workplace attacked a person, causing injuries that could be treated with simple medical intervention, the Supreme Court of Appeals emphasized that the act should be evaluated within the scope of negligent injury, and that a separate conviction for endangerment could not be issued when the crime of causing harm already existed. However, it was also stated that the crime of endangerment could be applied in cases where punishment for the crime of causing harm is not possible. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 8th Criminal Chamber – Decision: 2015/23783)
In a case where a stray dog bit a neighbor's child, injuring the victim, the investigation phase initially resulted in a decision of no grounds for prosecution for negligent injury. However, during the prosecution phase, a case was opened under Article 177 of the Turkish Penal Code. The Court of Cassation overturned the decision, stating that the act constituted both negligent injury and a dangerous act, and that the dismissal decision, based on an error in classifying the crime despite the indictment being prepared under Article 177, was unlawful. (Court of Cassation, 12th Criminal Chamber – Decision: 2014/16912)
In a case where a dog left unattended by the defendant injured a person, the Court of Cassation ruled that the act constituted the crime of negligent injury due to the occurrence of the injury, and that it was unlawful to convict the defendant of both this crime and the crime of endangering under Article 177 of the Turkish Penal Code. It emphasized that the crime of endangering should not be applied separately when the crime of causing injury exists. (Court of Cassation, 12th Criminal Chamber – Decision: 2014/15645)
A traffic accident resulting in property damage occurred when the defendant's cow wandered onto the road. The Court of Cassation determined that neither the elements of the crime under Article 177 of the Turkish Penal Code nor the crime of endangering traffic safety were present in this incident. It was stated that the incident was subject only to administrative sanctions within the framework of the Highway Traffic Law and should not be evaluated within the scope of criminal law. (Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber – Decision: 2009/2619)

6. Problems Faced Today

Dangerous Dog Breeds: Uncontrolled release of restricted breeds under Law No. 5199 on the Protection of Animals, such as Pitbulls, Dogo Argentinos, and Fila Brasileiros.
Municipality Oversight Deficiencies: Failure to collect stray and aggressive animals.
Public Debate: The balance between protecting stray animals and public safety.
Deliberate Use: Provoking an animal to attack, especially in situations of hostility.

7. Criminal Consequences

According to Article 177 of the Turkish Penal Code, the penalty imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years .
If the act results in injury or death:

Article 85 of the Turkish Penal Code (manslaughter by negligence) or
86-87 of the Turkish Penal Code (intentional injury) are applicable.

8. Prevention and Good Practices

Education and Awareness: Providing training to pet owners explaining their legal responsibilities.
Mandatory Equipment Use: Increasing administrative and penal penalties for allowing dogs to roam without a leash and muzzle.
Municipality Cooperation: Registration and rehabilitation of aggressive animals.
Emergency Response Mechanisms: Establishment of a dangerous animal reporting hotline and mobile teams.

9. Conclusion

The crime of releasing an animal in a way that could create danger is a significant legal issue, both in terms of criminal law and public safety. Court of Cassation rulings demonstrate that the risk created by the violation of the duty of supervision is severely punished. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, on the other hand, emphasizes the state's obligation to take preventive measures in this regard .

Measures to protect public health and safety should be increased at both individual and public levels.

Single Blog Title