Confiscate a pet- ethical issue or not

A while ago I talked about the rights of a pet living in an apartment building.
A pet can and may not simply be banned by the owners association. I already explained that a legal intervention is a must.

This time I want to talk about, whether it is permissible to make a pet part of a collection procedure. Not that I have been through this situation myself, but last week an old case popped up. It was a remarkable case which at the same time raised an ethical question; Is it allowed to confiscate a living animal.

During a collection procedure in fact a dog was seized, in this case a French bulldog.
An employee had borrowed under false pretenses money from his employer.
The employer had tried in many ways to get his money back, but with no result. In the end he was tired of all the bullying and lies, that out of desperation and in all anger he had the dog of the employee confiscated. The dog had to go with the veterinarian until the depth was paid. The animal protection organization provided the necessary media which attracted the attention of some political figures.
At the end the depth was paid and the dog could return to his owner.

Ethical issue or not, the lawyer succeeded. The collection procedure was effective.

Do you think it is legally regulated that animals can be confiscated, during a collection procedure?
Confiscation is regulated under the Turkish Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Law.
The legislation clearly indicates which things are not exempt. Pets are not included in this list and therefore you would think they can be seized.

However; since 2004, the Law on Animal Rights in Turkey is valid. According to Article 5 of that law, a companion animal / pet being cared for in a home or garden, can not be seized as a result of a collection procedure, unless the maintenance and care of the pet is part of a commercial purpose. In other words, if the debtor uses the pet to make money, this pet may be seized.

In short; by law, it is illegal to take pets as a result of a monetary claim.
Back to the case that we have deepened us in.
The lawyer in this case was lucky that the bailiff had no knowledge of the Law of Animal Rights, otherwise the story could have taken another turn. I am afraid that of today they still don’t have any knowledge of this law. :-)