ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
The implementation of European animal welfare standards in Turkish animal protection legislation and case law.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In this study, by examining the compatibility of Turkish legislation with the European convention on animal welfare through quantitative analysis and case law, the purpose is to fill a significant gap in the literature. Methods: The study employs a mixed-method approach encompassing quantitative legislative evaluation, case law review, and a strategic SWOT analysis. The compatibility of national laws with the Convention was quantitatively measured. Furthermore, a comprehensive analysis of 250 Supreme Court decisions was systematically conducted to assess the practical implementation and reflection of these international norms within the judicial system. Results: The findings reveal that Turkish legislation is generally 77% compliant with the Convention, indicating a level of compliance that is sufficient but could be improved. While full compliance is observed in areas such as the keeping of animals and surgical operations on animals, significant shortcomings persist in areas such as animal sanctuaries, trading, and commercial breeding. The case law analysis highlights a critical gap between international norms and judicial practice; only 3.6% of the examined decisions directly reference the Convention. Furthermore, only 33% of the cases that did reference the Convention resulted in outcomes in favor of animals; the majority of adverse outcomes arose from conflicts related to keeping animals in communal living areas. Discussion: By utilizing a strategic SWOT analysis, the study offers practical recommendations to address existing challenges. While presenting a clear roadmap to align national judicial practices with international animal welfare standards, the research also identifies the intrinsic relationship between judicial decisions, practical shortcomings, and the structural limitations within the Convention itself.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.