Seizure Of Live Animals
Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, Article 82: “The following items cannot be seized:
Article 82/1-4: “If the debtor is a farmer, the land and farm animals necessary for the livelihood of the debtor and his family,”
Article 82/5, “If necessary for the maintenance of the debtor and his family, the debtor’s choice of one milk-producing cow or buffalo, or three goats or sheep, and their three months’ feed and bedding.”
Article 82/1-7, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, “The amount necessary for the livelihood of the debtor and his family, whose livelihood is exclusively dependent on animal husbandry, and the feed and bedding for these animals for three months,”
Under the heading “Seizure of Young Animals,” in accordance with Article 83/b, “In the seizure of animals, young animals that need to be cared for by their mothers cannot be seized separately from their mothers, nor can their mothers be seized separately from their young.”
On the other hand, Article 5/5 of the Animal Protection Law No. 5199 states that “Domestic and ornamental animals kept in homes and gardens for non-commercial purposes cannot be seized due to the owner’s debt.”
When the provisions of both laws are considered together, the seizure of draft animals, riding animals, farm animals, and certain animals with a specific commercial value is possible unless the exceptional conditions specified in Articles 82 and 83/b apply. However, pursuant to Law No. 5199, the seizure of domestic and ornamental animals kept in homes and gardens is not possible.
A common situation encountered in the seizure of large or small livestock that do not meet the exceptional conditions is the outcome of third parties’ claims of ownership over live animals.
Article 97/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 – (Added: 18/2/1965-538/55 Md.) A person who possesses a movable property is considered its owner. Even if the debtor and third parties jointly possess the movable property, the property is deemed to be in the debtor’s possession. In jointly occupied premises, movable property whose ownership is clearly attributable to women, men, or children by its nature, or which is necessary due to custom, art, profession, or occupation, is presumed to belong to them. The burden of proving the contrary rests with the claimant. The claimant in a claim for ownership must demonstrate and prove how the property was acquired and the legal and factual reasons and events that necessitated its being in the debtor’s possession.
Regarding a third party claiming ownership of live animals in a live animal seizure, the Supreme Court of Appeals, 21st Civil Chamber, Case No. 2007/25774, Decision No. 2008/16917, dated November 3, 2008, states:
SUMMARY: In a seizure conducted at the debtor’s address, it is presumed that the movable property found at the debtor’s address belongs to the debtor. This is a legal presumption. If the seized property belongs to a third party, the third party must prove this claim with strong and conclusive evidence. Otherwise, a claim of ownership cannot be proven merely by making a statement.
DECISION: The dispute concerns a claim of ownership filed by a third party based on Articles 96 and following of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.
The plaintiff third party is the debtor’s son, and since the seizure was carried out on March 20, 2006, in the debtor’s absence and in the presence of the plaintiff third party, in the animal barn located in the garden of the debtor’s house, the presumption of ownership provided for in Article 97/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is in favor of the debtor and, consequently, the creditor. The third party must prove the contrary with strong and conclusive evidence.
According to the records and documents in the file, the seized cattle were registered in the system on November 7, 2006, one day before the lawsuit was filed, under the number TR10000007763 in the name of the plaintiff, and on January 12, 2007, it is understood that the birth dates of the large livestock with ear tags numbered TR 1000000191500; TR991000699218; TR99100062716 and TR100000040904 are from the year 2002. The witnesses testified that the plaintiff purchased the seized cattle in April 2006 with a bank loan.
In this case, the court must determine whether the cattle registered in the system under the business number TR10000007763 after the date of seizure (TR 1000000191500; TR991000699218; TR99100062716 and TR100000040904 ear tag numbers) since their birth, The reasons and dates for the transfer to the plaintiff should be thoroughly investigated, and a decision should be made based on the outcome. However, the decision was made in writing without sufficient investigation, which is contrary to procedure and law and requires reversal.
Therefore, the defendant creditor’s appeals for reversal in this regard should be accepted, and the judgment should be reversed.
CONCLUSION: The judgment is reversed for the reasons stated above, and the appeal fee shall be refunded to the defendant (creditor) upon request. The decision was made unanimously on November 3, 2008.
Supreme Court of Appeals, 8th Civil Chamber Case No: 2015/13159 Decision No: 2015/19176 Date: 26.10.2015 In the index dated:
DECISION: The plaintiff’s third-party representative stated that the animals belonging to the client were seized on 05.03.2012, that the animals subject to seizure had no connection to the debtor, and that the address where the seizure took place was a livestock farm belonging to the third-party company. The plaintiff requested that the claim of ownership be accepted, that the seizure of the animals be lifted, and that the animals be returned to the client.
1- Based on the information and documents in the case file, there is no procedural or legal violation in the discussion and evaluation of the evidence relied upon in the court’s decision. Upon examination of the passports submitted to the file by the third-party plaintiff, it is understood that the cattle with ear tag number .. 2- Regarding the defendant creditor’s attorney’s appeal against the decision concerning the other animals subject to seizure, except for the large livestock mentioned in paragraph 1,
2- Regarding the defendant creditor’s appeal against the decision concerning the other animals subject to seizure, except for the large animal mentioned in paragraph 1; the seizure in question was carried out in the presence of the debtor. For this reason, the presumption of ownership under Article 97/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is in the interest of the creditor, as it is in the interest of the debtor. The third party, who bears the burden of proof and has the opportunity to refute the presumption with any evidence, claims that the seized animals belong to them and that they have animal passports. Although they have submitted the animal passports as evidence, the passport numbers submitted to the file do not match the ear tag numbers of the animals subject to seizure. During the appeal review, based on the rejection decision dated February 26, 2015, the list attached to the letter dated March 23, 2015, from the Derince Agriculture and Livestock Directorate, which was added to the file, indicates the date of seizure of the animals and the establishments where they were located as of March 23, 2015; the information requested regarding the farms where the animals were born and the dates on which they were transferred to other owners was not provided, and therefore it was not considered sufficient to resolve the dispute.
CONCLUSION
Large and small livestock are considered movable property and may be subject to actual seizure.
By sending a letter to the Provincial or District Directorate of Agriculture inquiring whether there are any animals registered in the name of the debtor(s), it is possible to determine whether there are any large or small livestock registered in the name of the debtor(s). However, the information provided by the Directorate of Agriculture only indicates whether there is an animal registered in the name of the individual. As stated and explained, the presumption of ownership under Article 97/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is in favor of the creditor. The person claiming ownership may prove the contrary with any evidence. However, the 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2012/13033 E. that the evidence supporting the claim of ownership based on animals with ear tags was evaluated as conclusive evidence, while the claims based on statements regarding animals without ear tags were deemed to be unsubstantiated.