The court also observed the psychology of ‘Piraye’ and ‘Cingöz’ in the ‘cat sitter’ case

The 30th Civil Court of First Instance in Istanbul received an expert report on how the psychology of cats would be affected when deciding in the case of separated lovers and cats they adopted while they were together.

According to information on file, the couple, who lived together for a time, adopted the cats they named “Piraye” in 2013 and “Cingöz”, who was blind in 2015, but the couple’s relationship ended in 2016.

After their separation, the male plaintiff, who was a real estate agent, filed a lawsuit demanding that the cats be returned to him. In his motion, CO said he left the cats with his ex-girlfriend until he found a new home and settled down, and continued to see them even when the defendant didn’t. was not at home during this time.

Noting that “Piraye” was the inspiration for the “4 Walls, 1 Home” social responsibility project, and that part of the consulting fees obtained from the sale of each portfolio sold under the project, the food needs of the animals waiting to be adopted at the shelters were met, the applicant messaged to receive the cats after they picked up their order in 2018. He said he threw it away but got the response “I have cats now”.

The plaintiff asked the court to give him “Piraye” and “Cingöz”.

The defendant woman, on the other hand, stated in her reply motion that they owned “Piraye” together and that she had borne the treatment costs of “Cingöz”, who was on the verge of death when she was found. Stating that the cats were only separated from her for 5 weeks throughout their life, the woman noted that the cats belonged to her ex-boyfriend and there was no agreement for that she takes care of them temporarily, and demanded that the case be dropped.


The 30th Civil Court of First Instance in Istanbul asked the veterinary expert to prepare a report on “the current living conditions of cats, whether they can live independently from each other and how their psychology will be affected if they are separated”.

While preparing his report, the expert examined the cats in the woman’s house. Stating that all the needs of the cats are met in their current habitat and that they are healthy, the expert said that frequently changing the habitats of the animals will create stress and that “Piraye” can get used to the change of l ‘environment. in a short time, but it will be difficult for “Cingöz” to get used to it because he is blind.


The court dismissed the lawsuit filed by the male plaintiff following the trial.

In the reasoned decision, it was pointed out that, according to the Animal Protection Act, animals have the right to life, nutrition, care and not to be subjected to ill-treatment, and declared “Animals are alive and have basic needs such as food, water and shelter. Although not everything is known about the spiritual abilities of animals at this time, at the very least it is said are sentient and feel pain and joy just like humans, it has been said.

According to the information in the file, it was stated in the decision that “Piraye” and “Cingöz” were the joint property of the parties, and in this case, it was noted that the cats were the joint property of the parties until what the parties separate. .

In the ruling, where it was stated that after the parties separated their homes, the female defendant took care of the cats and covered the costs, it was stated that the male plaintiff, who argued that he had temporarily left the cats and that he would take them back after restoring their order, did not provide the necessary financial support to care for the cats during this period.

In the decision, “The plaintiff left the cats in the possession of the defendant and did not take care of the care and needs of the cats for a long time. In this case, it must be admitted that the defendant acquired the right of ownership over Piraye and Cingöz .” it has been said.


The defendant woman’s lawyer, Oğuzhan Bostanoğlu, assessed the decision to the AA correspondent as follows:

“Although the case in question is subject to the provisions of furniture delivery, it is a good decision for Cingöz and Piraye to stay with the client, due to international conventions and the conscientious discretion of the judge and the fact that the case is being treated as a custodial matter.Even though the cats are co-owned, the plaintiffs side for many years after their adoption.The fact that the cats do not share in any expense and do not care for the cats means that he renounces his right of ownership. On the contrary, the customer has protected and watched over the cats like his children, as the expert report proves, and has borne all the expenses alone.

While the decision is appropriate, it sets a precedent for pets that married or loving couples have together.

Leave a Comment