The Participation Of The Owner Of The Real Property In The Proceedings Must Be Ensured

The Participation Of The Owner Of The Real Property In The Proceedings Must Be Ensured

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

Section 2
Case No.: 2015/13950
Decision No.: 2018/
Decision Date: 05/24/2018

DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DATED 05/24/2018 AND NUMBERED 2015/13950 (INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION)

(ECHR Art. 6) (Law No. 2709, Arts. 2, 13, 36) (Law No. 6100, Arts. 27, 61, 63, 66, 68) (Law No. 2577, Art. 31) (Law No. 6216, Art. 50) (GOLDER – UNITED KINGDOM CASE) (SEFER YILMAZ AND MERYEM YILMAZ – TURKEY CASE) (EŞİM – TURKEY CASE) (MENEMEN MINIBUS DRIVERS ASSOCIATION – TURKEY CASE) (TAHİR CANAN – TURKEY CASE) (ANY. MAH. 10.02.2016 T. 2015/96 E. K.2016/9 K.)

RGT: 29.06.2018
RG NO: 30463

SECTION TWO

DECISION

APPLICATION BY SEMA CALGAV AND OYA YAMAK

Application Number: 2015/13950

Date of Decision: 24/5/2018

President: Engin YILDIRIM

Members: Osman Alifeyyaz PAKSÜT

Celal Mümtaz AKINCI

Muammer TOPAL

M.Emin KUZ

Rapporteur: Gülbin AYNUR

Applicants: 1. Sema CALGAV

Oya YAMAK
Representative: Attorney Mehmet Suat KAYIKÇI

I. SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION

1. The application concerns the allegation that the right of access to court was violated because the owner of the immovable property was not notified of the lawsuit filed by a third party against the administration seeking the annulment of the zoning plan for said property, thereby preventing the owner from participating in the proceedings.

APPLICATION PROCESS

The application was filed on 19/8/2015.
After a preliminary administrative review of the application form and its attachments, the application was submitted to the Commission.
The Commission decided that the admissibility review of the application should be conducted by the Division.
The Section President decided that the admissibility and merits of the application should be examined together.
A copy of the application documents was sent to the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) for information. The Ministry did not submit any comments.
III. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

The facts, as stated in the application form and its annexes, are summarized as follows:
The applicants are owners of a 1/4 share of a property subject to joint ownership located in the Maltepe district of Istanbul province.
The property in question is designated as a “gas station area” in the 1/5000 scale master development plan dated 4/5/2006 and the 1/1000 scale implementation development plan dated 26/2/2007, prepared for the specified settlement area.
After completing the necessary licensing procedures in accordance with zoning regulations, the applicants and their partners leased the property to a company engaged in the purchase and sale of petroleum products (the lessee Company) for operation as a gas station under a lease agreement signed on December 18, 2007. The lease agreement was drawn up to be valid until December 31, 2023.
Another company (the plaintiff company) operating a gas station in the same neighborhood filed a lawsuit in the administrative court against the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and Maltepe Municipality (the defendant administrations), seeking the annulment of the sections of the zoning and implementation plans relating to the specified location that designated the property with parcel number 73, in which the applicants are shareholders, as a gas station area.

In this case heard before the Istanbul 1st Administrative Court (the Court), the tenant Company participated as an intervening party alongside the defendant administrative bodies.
The Court annulled the zoning plans in question with its decision dated 24/2/2009. The grounds for the decision stated that, in accordance with the provisions of the legislation on fuel stations, fuel sales stations to be opened and operated with applications made after 19/6/1996 must comply with the distance requirement. Based on the report prepared following the on-site inspection and expert examination, it was stated that the zoning plans in question were not legally compliant with regard to the parcel in question, as it was understood that they had been established without taking into account the distance requirements determined in accordance with the provisions of the legislation regarding gas stations.
The decision was overturned by the Sixth Chamber of the Council of State (Chamber) on December 22, 2009, upon appeal by the defendant administrations and the intervener. In the grounds for the reversal decision, it was determined that the lawsuit against the master zoning plan was not filed within the time limit. It was noted that, since the implementation zoning plan was in line with the master zoning plan, which was not the subject of a timely lawsuit, the court of first instance should have taken this into account when rendering its decision, and that the decision subject to appeal, which annulled the plans in question, was not legally sound.
The Plaintiff Company sought a correction of the decision against the reversal decision. The Chamber accepted the request for correction of the decision with its decision dated 11/9/2013 and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
After the judicial process regarding the zoning plans was finalized in this manner, the Plaintiff Company, this time on behalf of the tenant Company, applied to the Municipality on February 26, 2014, requesting the cancellation of the licenses issued to the unhygienic establishments and the suspension of the gas station’s activities on the grounds that they were contrary to the current zoning situation; its application was rejected without response. The Plaintiff Company filed a lawsuit at the Istanbul 4th Administrative Court seeking the cancellation of the implied rejection. Pursuant to the decision of the said Court dated 7/4/2015 regarding the cancellation of the implied rejection, the tenant Company’s operating license was revoked.
One of the applicants, Sema Calgav, applied to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality on June 29, 2015, requesting information on whether a lawsuit had been filed regarding the cancellation of the zoning plan for her property, and if so, the court and file number, and the outcome of the lawsuit.
In its response dated July 22, 2015, the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality informed the applicant that the zoning plans for the property had been revoked by a court decision, that the parcel in question had therefore become unplanned, but that a new planning process for the property had been initiated and was ongoing.
The aforementioned letter was served to the applicant on July 22, 2015.
The applicants filed an individual application on August 19, 2015.
IV. RELEVANT LAW

A. National Law

The relevant part of Article 31 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 dated 6/1/1982 reads as follows:
“In matters not covered by this Law; … the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply in cases such as the participation of third parties in the case, notification of the case, … However, the notification of the case shall be made ex officio by the Council of State, the court, or the judge.”

Article 27, under the heading “Principles Governing Proceedings” in the Second Part of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 dated 12/1/2011, regulates the “right to be heard.” The aforementioned article reads as follows:
“(1) The parties to the case, interveners, and other interested parties in the proceedings have the right to be heard in connection with their rights.

(2) This right includes:

a) Being informed about the proceedings,

b) The right to make statements and provide evidence,
c) The court’s consideration of the statements and the substantiation of decisions in a concrete and clear manner.”

Paragraph (1) of Article 61 of Law No. 6100, titled “Notification and Conditions,” reads as follows:
“If one of the parties loses the case and believes that they will be liable to a third party or the third party itself, they may notify the third party of the case until the investigation is completed.”

Paragraph (1) of Article 63 of Law No. 6100, titled “Status of the Person Notified,” reads as follows:
“The person notified of the lawsuit may join the lawsuit on the side of the party who has a legal interest in winning the case.”

Article 66 of Law No. 6100, titled “Incidental Intervention,” reads as follows:
“(1) A third party may participate in the case as an incidental intervener until the investigation is completed, on the side of the party with a legal interest in winning the case and for the purpose of assisting that party.”

Paragraph (1) of Article 68 of Law No. 6100, titled “Status of the incidental intervener,” reads as follows:
“If the request for intervention is accepted, the intervener may only follow the case from the point at which they join. The intervener may advance claims or defenses that are in the interest of the party they are assisting; they may perform any procedural acts that are not contrary to the actions and statements of that party.”

International Law

European Convention on Human Rights
The relevant part of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) reads as follows:
“Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law for the determination of his rights and obligations…”

Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has stated that although Article 6(1) of the Convention does not explicitly refer to the right of access to a court or tribunal, when the terms used in the article are considered as a whole in their context, it guarantees the right of access to a court. (Golder v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 4451/70, 21/2/1975, §§ 28-36). According to the ECtHR, the right of access to a court is implicit in Article 6(1) of the Convention. This conclusion is not an expansive interpretation imposing new obligations on the Contracting States, but is based on a reading of the first sentence of Article 6(1) in conjunction with the purpose and objectives of the Convention and the general principles of law. Consequently, Article 6(1) of the Convention covers the right of everyone to have their claims relating to civil rights and obligations brought before a court (Golder v. the United Kingdom, § 36).
The ECtHR accepts that the right of access to court, which is an element of a fair trial, is not absolute and that this right, which by its nature requires regulation by the state, may be limited to a certain extent. However, the ECtHR states that these limitations must not restrict or weaken the individual’s access to court in a manner and to an extent that would undermine the essence of the right. According to the ECtHR, restrictions that do not pursue a legitimate aim or that do not establish a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved are incompatible with Article 6(1) of the Convention (Sefer Yılmaz and Meryem Yılmaz v. Turkey, B. No: 611/12, 17/11/2015, § 59; Eşim v. Turkey, Application No. 59601/09, 17/9/2013, § 19; Edificaciones March Gallego S.A. v. Spain, Application No. 28028/95, 19/2/1998, § 34).
According to the ECtHR, the absence of a law preventing access to domestic remedies may not always be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 6(1). Considering the function of the rule of law principle in a democratic society, it is understood that the degree of access provided by the legislature must also be sufficient to guarantee individuals’ “right to a court.” For the right of access to be effective, the individual must have clear and practical opportunities to present their arguments against the action or procedure that constitutes an interference with their right (Bellet v. France, Application No. 23805/94, 4/12/1995, § 36).

The European Court of Human Rights examined the institution of notification in administrative justice in the case of Menemen Minibus Drivers Association v. Turkey (Application No. 44088/04, 9/12/2008, §§ 4-11). In the case at issue, the governorate issued a regulatory act providing for the issuance of temporary route authorization certificates to vehicles of certain categories, subject to obtaining insurance. This regulatory act directly concerned the Menemen Minibus Drivers Association, which operates on the Menemen-Izmir route. Following a lawsuit filed by the Menemen Passenger Buses Motor Vehicles Cooperative against the governor’s office regarding the aforementioned regulatory action, the administrative court annulled the regulatory action. The governor’s office appealed the decision. The Menemen Minibus Drivers Association filed a petition to intervene in the appeal proceedings. Shortly after accepting the applicant’s request to intervene on March 16, 2004, the Council of State upheld the decision of the court of first instance. Although the governor’s office issued a new regulatory act on May 7, 2004, permitting the applicant’s vehicles, this act was also annulled by the administrative court on January 11, 2005. On May 23, 2005, the applicant was notified to cease transportation activities.
The ECtHR pointed out that Article 31 of Law No. 2577, which refers to the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the procedure for notification of the case, specifically provides that the court shall “ex officio” notify third parties whose interests are affected by the dispute that is the subject of the case (Menemen Minibüsçüler Odası v. Turkey, § 25). The ECtHR emphasized that, despite the clear wording of the aforementioned article, the court did not inform the applicant of the dispute in question. According to the ECtHR, as a result, the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to be heard because he was unable to participate in the proceedings at the first instance in the first case. Due to the rule limiting the number of grounds for appeal, the applicant was also unable to raise his substantive objections before the Council of State. With regard to the second case, the applicant was completely disconnected from the dispute due to non-compliance with Article 31 of Law No. 2577. As the main party, the governor’s office did not appeal the decision, and therefore the applicant was unable to put forward his claims, even to a limited extent, before the Council of State (Menemen Minibüsçüler Odası/Turkey, § 26).
In this context, the ECtHR, which assessed the application, concluded that the failure of the national courts to comply with the requirements of Article 31 of Law No. 2577 prevented the applicant from being heard in a dispute directly affecting his rights and obligations and that the applicant’s right of access to court had been violated (Menemen Minibus Drivers Association v. Turkey, § § 27, 28).
V. EXAMINATION AND GROUNDS

The application was examined and considered at the Court’s meeting on May 24, 2018:
A. The Applicants’ Claims

The applicants complain that, although the annulment ruling in the case underlying the individual application had direct consequences for them, they were deprived of the opportunity to present evidence and prove their claims during the trial because the Court did not notify them of the case. The applicants state that they were able to obtain information about the case in question from a letter sent in response to their application to the Municipality upon hearing that the zoning plan relating to their property had been annulled. The applicants, stating that both the value of their property has decreased and they have been deprived of the rental income it provided due to the cancellation of the zoning plan, complain that they were unable to voice these claims aimed at protecting their legal interests because they were not allowed to participate in the case; they argue that their right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 36 of the Constitution, has been violated.
B. Assessment

The first paragraph of Article 36 of the Constitution, titled “Freedom to seek rights,” reads as follows:
“Everyone has the right to claim and defend themselves as a plaintiff or defendant before the courts of law and to a fair trial, using legitimate means and methods.”

The Constitutional Court is not bound by the legal characterization of the events made by the applicant and determines the legal characterization of the events and facts itself (Tahir Canan, B. No: 2012/969, 18/9/2013, § 16). The essence of the applicants’ complaints is that they were not allowed to participate in the proceedings in order to effectively exercise their right of defense, which should have been granted to them as parties in an administrative case directly affecting them. Therefore, the applicants’ allegations of violation in the context of the aforementioned complaints were examined within the scope of the right of access to court.
Admissibility
In the present case, it is noted that the decision subject to the individual application became final on 11/9/2013, while the individual application was filed on 19/8/2015. The applicants claim that they became aware of the case in question when the response letter to the application made to the Municipality for information was served on July 22, 2015, and that they filed an individual application within the time limit from that date.

The application was examined and considered at the Court’s meeting on May 24, 2018:
A. The Applicants’ Claims

Although Article 36 of the Constitution does not provide for any grounds for restricting the freedom to seek justice, it cannot be said that this is an absolute right that cannot be restricted in any way. It is accepted that even rights for which no specific grounds for restriction are provided have certain limitations arising from the nature of the right itself. Furthermore, even if the article regulating the right does not provide for any grounds for restriction, it is possible to restrict these rights based on the rules contained in other articles of the Constitution. It is clear that some of the regulations concerning the scope and conditions of use of the right to bring a lawsuit are rules that reveal the limits arising from the nature of the freedom to seek justice and determine the normative scope of the right. However, these limitations cannot be contrary to the guarantees set forth in Article 13 of the Constitution (AYM, E.2015/96, K.2016/9, 10/2/2016, § 10; Ertuğrul Dalbaş, B. No: 2014/7805, 25/10/2017, § 58; Osman Uslu, B. No: 2014/9414, 26/10/2017, § 75).
The notification of the case is a procedural law institution that ensures that an individual who is not a party to a case but whose interests are affected by its outcome is informed so that they can exercise their rights through intervention and other means. However, in order to ensure that proceedings are conducted within a reasonable time, in an orderly manner, and without unnecessary expense, and thus to realize the principle of procedural economy, notification of the case is subject to certain conditions and procedural rules. Ensuring procedural economy in determining the rules of procedure, thereby ensuring good administration of justice and realizing the public interest, is one of the requirements of the principle of the rule of law set forth in Article 2 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is possible to make the notification of a lawsuit subject to certain conditions and procedural rules, taking into account the principles of procedural economy and good administration of justice (Yusuf Bilin, § 54).
However, it should not be overlooked that in a lawsuit filed by third parties but affecting the interests of individuals in terms of its outcome, the right to access the court also requires that they be able to express their claims and defenses. In such a case, public authorities are expected to strike a reasonable balance between the public interest in procedural economy and the individual interest in exercising the right of access to court. Where the individual interest in access to court is clearly predominant, it may be debatable whether restricting access to court on the grounds of procedural economy serves a legitimate purpose. In other words, in such cases, it may not be possible to say that Article 2 of the Constitution permits the restriction of the right of access to court (Yusuf Bilin, § 55).
In the present case, considering that the cancellation of the zoning plans relating to the immovable property owned by the applicants directly affected their interests, serious doubts arise as to whether the public interest in ensuring procedural economy in the intervention in the right of access to court by not notifying the applicants of the case is of such importance and weight as to require the individual interests of the applicants in participating in the case to be disregarded. Therefore, it is considered more appropriate to address the existence of a legitimate aim below, together with the proportionality of the interference.
iii. Proportionality

(1) General Principles

The principle of proportionality consists of three sub-principles: “suitability,” “necessity,” and “proportionality.” “Suitability” means that the proposed intervention must be suitable for achieving the desired objective; ‘necessity’ means that the intervention must be mandatory for achieving the desired objective, i.e., it must not be possible to achieve the same objective with a less severe intervention; “proportionality” means that a reasonable balance must be maintained between the intervention in the individual’s right and the desired objective. (Mehmet Akdoğan and others, B. No: 2013/817, 19/12/2013, § 38).
Proportionality, the third sub-principle of reasonableness, requires a fair balance between the protection of the public interest and the rights and freedoms of the individual. If the envisaged measure places an extraordinary and excessive burden on the individual, the intervention cannot be considered proportionate and therefore reasonable. Accordingly, it is necessary to determine whether the measure imposed places an excessive and disproportionate burden on the applicants.
The Constitutional Court has stated in its assessments within the scope of individual applications that restrictions that prevent a person from applying to the court or render the court’s decision meaningless, in other words, significantly invalidate the court’s decision, may violate the right of access to the court (Özkan Şen, § 52).
The establishment of certain conditions and procedural rules for third parties to participate in a case affecting their interests does not constitute a violation of the right of access to court, provided that these conditions and rules do not render participation in the case impossible or excessively difficult.

The establishment of certain conditions and procedural rules for third parties to join a case affecting their own interests does not constitute a violation of the right of access to court, provided that these conditions and rules do not render joining the case impossible or excessively difficult. However, if the judicial authority misapplies these conditions and rules in a manner that is clearly contrary to the law, thereby preventing persons seeking to protect their interests in disputes affecting them from participating in the proceedings, this may violate the right of access to court. Therefore, when examining whether these conditions are met and applying procedural rules, courts must avoid attitudes, interpretations, and assessments that would undermine the fairness of the proceedings (Yusuf Bilin, § 51).
Article 31 of Law No. 2577 states that the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to the participation of third parties in the case and the notification of the case, but it is envisaged that the notification of the case shall be made ex officio by the court. Article 66 of Law No. 6100 also stipulates that a third party who has a legal interest in the outcome of the case may participate in the proceedings as an intervener until the investigation is completed, alongside the party who stands to benefit from the third party’s success in the case and for the purpose of assisting that party. In administrative courts, where the legality of administrative acts and actions is reviewed, it is important to ensure that third parties who claim rights over the subject matter of the dispute or who have a legal interest in the outcome of the case participate effectively, not merely formally, in order to guarantee the right to a fair trial. The most important procedural consequence of exercising this right is that third parties who have a legal interest in participating in the case because the decision to be rendered in the case will directly or indirectly affect their interests must be notified of the case (Yusuf Bilin, § 59).
At this point, it should be noted that the provision in Article 31 of Law No. 2577, which provides for the court to notify the parties to the case ex officio, cannot be interpreted to mean that the administrative court is obliged to notify all relevant persons ex officio of an administrative case it is hearing. Therefore, the discretion to apply the procedural rules regarding the notification system, which is introduced to enable third parties who may be affected by the outcome of the case to present their arguments before the court in connection with their own rights, lies with the courts of first instance. In this context, it is essentially the duty of the courts of first instance to assess, in the specific circumstances of each case, whether a third party will be affected by the outcome of the case and whether there is a legal interest in their participation in the case. Reviewing the discretion of the court of first instance in applying or not applying the notification institution, where the exercise of this discretion directly affects the rights and obligations of the applicant, and thus deprives them of the opportunity to present their arguments on a dispute where it is very clear that they have a legal interest in participating in the proceedings, thereby undermining the fairness of the trial, it is not the duty of the Constitutional Court to do so (Yusuf Bilin, § 60).
(2) Application of Principles to the Case

Considering the subject matter of the case underlying the individual application and the nature of the dispute, it is immediately and clearly apparent that the applicants will be directly affected by the outcome of the aforementioned case and, therefore, have a legal interest in participating in the proceedings.
In the case in question, it is clear that the applicants have certain interests that intersect and overlap with those of the defendant administrations and the tenant Company (intervener) that is involved in the case alongside the defendant administrations. In this context, it is seen that certain issues that could be raised by the applicants regarding the absence of any element of illegality that would require the cancellation of the zoning plans at issue in the case have already been raised by the defendant administrations and the intervener during the trial process. However, it is also foreseeable that the applicants, particularly because they are the owners of the property in dispute, may raise additional claims that only they can raise in relation to the dispute in question. Indeed, it is understood that the claims raised by the applicants in their individual application form, particularly in the context of property rights, and which they stated should be taken into account by the courts of first instance, were not raised by the defendant administrations and the intervener during the trial process. Therefore, it cannot be said that the courts of first instance reached a conclusion by evaluating the claims in question during the trial process. Consequently, it should not be overlooked that if the applicants had been allowed to participate in the case, they would have raised different claims that would have required additional evaluations/examinations to be made in addition to the evaluations in the court of first instance’s decision.

Accordingly, in the present case, it is understood that the applicants were unable to participate in the proceedings concerning their immovable property because they were not notified of the case, remained completely disconnected from the dispute, and did not have the opportunity to express their views on matters they considered relevant to the substance of the dispute and its outcome or to present evidence to support their claims. On the other hand, it was assessed that the individual benefit of the applicants being notified of the case in question, which directly affected their rights, was of a dominant nature compared to the public benefit of observing procedural economy, and that the failure to notify them of the case seriously undermined the balance that should be observed between the public interest and the individual interest to the detriment of the applicants.
In this case, it was concluded that the failure of the courts of first instance to comply with the procedural provisions regarding notification of the case under Article 31 of Law No. 2577, thereby depriving the applicants of the opportunity to present their arguments before the court, imposed an excessive and disproportionate burden on the applicants, and therefore the interference with the applicants’ right of access to court was disproportionate.
Based on the reasons explained, it must be concluded that the applicants’ right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 36 of the Constitution, has been violated.
Regarding Article 50 of Law No. 6216
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 50 of the Law on the Establishment and Judicial Procedures of the Constitutional Court, dated 30/3/2011 and numbered 6216, are as follows:
“(1) At the end of the substantive review, a decision shall be made as to whether the applicant’s right has been violated or not. If a violation is found, a ruling shall be made on the measures to be taken to eliminate the violation and its consequences…

(2) If the violation found stems from a court decision, the file shall be sent to the relevant court for retrial in order to eliminate the violation and its consequences. Where there is no legal benefit in a retrial, compensation may be awarded to the applicant or the applicant may be advised to bring an action in the ordinary courts. Where the court is obliged to conduct a retrial, it shall, if possible, decide on the case file in a manner that eliminates the violation and its consequences as explained in the Constitutional Court’s violation decision.”

The applicants requested that the violation be determined and that a retrial be ordered.
The application concluded that the right of access to court, which is guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution as part of the right to a fair trial, had been violated.
Since there is legal benefit in conducting a retrial to eliminate the consequences of the violation of the right of access to court, it is necessary to decide to send a copy of the violation decision to the Istanbul 1st Administrative Court for a retrial.
It is necessary to decide that the total trial costs of 2,206.90 TL, consisting of 226.90 TL in fees and 1,980 TL in attorney’s fees, as determined from the documents in the file, be paid jointly to the applicants.
VI. JUDGMENT

Based on the reasons explained;

A. The claim that the right of access to court has been violated is ADMISSIBLE.

B. The right of access to court, which is guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution as part of the right to a fair trial, has been VIOLATED.

C. THAT a copy of the decision be SENT to the Istanbul 1st Administrative Court (E.2007/1256, K.2009/243) for a retrial to eliminate the consequences of the violation of the right of access to court,

D. THAT the total litigation costs of 2,206.90 TL, consisting of 226.90 TL in fees and 1,980 TL in attorney’s fees, BE PAID JOINTLY TO THE APPLICANTS,

E. The payment shall be made within four months from the date of the applicants’ application to the Ministry of Finance following the notification of the decision. In case of delay in payment, legal INTEREST shall be applied for the period from the date of expiry of this period to the date of payment.

F. A copy of the decision shall be SENT to the Ministry of Justice. It was decided unanimously on 5/24/2018.

Bir yanıt yazın Yanıtı iptal et