Foreign Buyer Purchases a Share While a Pre-emption Lawsuit Is Pending in Turkey: Can Ownership Be Lost? (2026 Updated Guide)

A foreign buyer purchases a land share while a statutory pre-emption lawsuit is already pending in Turkey. Learn whether ownership can be transferred to the claimant, how a resale affects the lawsuit, what changed in 2026 and which checks should be completed before buying.

A foreign investor may purchase a share in co-owned land in Turkey and successfully register the ownership at the land registry. The buyer may therefore believe that the acquisition is complete and legally secure. Only afterward does the buyer discover that the share was already the subject of an ongoing statutory pre-emption lawsuit filed by another co-owner.

This is a serious title risk.

Under Turkish law, statutory pre-emption gives the other co-owners of property held in ordinary co-ownership a right, under the statutory conditions, to pursue acquisition of a share sold to an outside third party. Article 732 of the Turkish Civil Code establishes the statutory pre-emption right when a co-owner sells all or part of their share to a third party, while Article 734 requires the right to be exercised through litigation against the buyer.

For a foreign investor purchasing a share that has already become the subject of a pre-emption lawsuit, the crucial question is therefore not simply whether the seller is currently registered as owner. The buyer must determine whether the title being acquired is already exposed to a pending claim that could ultimately result in registration of the disputed share in the pre-emption claimant’s name.

The risk is particularly important in 2026 because substantial amendments to the statutory pre-emption regime entered into force on December 25, 2025, including changes to the ultimate exercise period and the amount that must be deposited by a successful pre-emption claimant.

What Is a Statutory Pre-emption Right?

Statutory pre-emption is a restriction arising from co-ownership.

Where property is held in ordinary co-ownership and one co-owner sells all or part of their share to a person who is not already a co-owner, the other co-owners may, subject to the applicable requirements, exercise statutory pre-emption.

The purpose is to allow existing co-owners to acquire the externally sold share under the statutory mechanism rather than being compelled to continue co-ownership with an outside purchaser.

Who Is Normally the Defendant in a Pre-emption Lawsuit?

Article 734 provides that statutory pre-emption is exercised by filing a lawsuit against the buyer.

This is critically important for foreign investors.

The dispute is therefore directed at the person who acquired the share rather than being merely a damages dispute between the original co-owner and another co-owner.

If the claim succeeds, the ownership position itself can be affected.

Can the Original Buyer Lose the Purchased Share?

Yes, if the statutory requirements for pre-emption are satisfied and the claimant successfully pursues the case.

A pre-emption action seeks registration of the relevant ownership share in the claimant’s name under the applicable legal mechanism.

Therefore, the fact that the buyer is registered as owner does not by itself eliminate the litigation risk.

This is exactly why purchasing a share already subject to a pending pre-emption action requires heightened due diligence.

What If the Original Buyer Sells the Share to a Foreign Investor During the Lawsuit?

This creates a more complicated procedural situation.

Turkish procedural law generally recognizes that, except where prohibited, the subject matter of pending litigation may be transferred while the lawsuit continues. Article 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure regulates what happens when the subject matter of a pending lawsuit is transferred to a third person.

Therefore, purchasing the disputed share from the defendant does not necessarily make the pre-emption lawsuit disappear.

A Resale Does Not Automatically Clean the Title

This is one of the most important points for a foreign buyer.

The seller may say:

“I am currently registered as owner.”

“The lawsuit was filed against me, not you.”

“If I sell the share to you, the old lawsuit becomes irrelevant.”

These statements should not be accepted without legal review.

Transfer of the disputed share during litigation can trigger procedural consequences rather than automatically terminating the underlying dispute.

Article 125 Can Become Critical

Under Article 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the defendant transfers the subject matter of the lawsuit to a third person after litigation has commenced, the claimant is given procedural alternatives.

One option is to continue the case against the person who acquired the subject matter; another statutory option concerns transforming the claim against the transferring defendant into a compensation claim.

For a foreign buyer, this means purchasing the disputed share can potentially result in becoming directly exposed to the existing proceedings.

Can the Pre-emption Claim Continue Against the New Buyer?

Potentially, yes.

Where the disputed ownership share is transferred during the proceedings, Article 125 must be considered in determining how the case proceeds.

The foreign investor should therefore never assume that being the second or third purchaser automatically defeats the pre-emption claim.

The litigation history must be reviewed before purchase.

What If the Foreign Buyer Did Not Know About the Lawsuit?

Lack of knowledge does not automatically eliminate the underlying statutory and procedural risk.

Statutory pre-emption arises from law. Turkish jurisprudence has emphasized that a purchaser of a share in co-owned property must take into account the possibility that an eligible co-owner may exercise statutory pre-emption.

Where litigation has already been filed, the risk is even more concrete.

Good Faith Should Not Be Treated as Complete Protection

A foreign buyer may argue:

“I checked the seller’s name in the land registry.”

“I paid market value.”

“I had no knowledge of the dispute.”

These facts can be important in evaluating the complete transaction and possible claims against the seller, but they should not be assumed to extinguish a statutory pre-emption lawsuit automatically.

The buyer should examine the actual procedural status and legal effect of the pending action.

First Check: What Share Is Subject to the Lawsuit?

The buyer must confirm whether the purchased ownership interest is actually the same share involved in the pending proceedings.

Compare:

the parcel information,

original seller,

original buyer,

percentage transferred,

sale date, and

current registered ownership.

Do not rely on a verbal statement that the lawsuit concerns “another part of the land.”

Second Check: When Was the Original Sale Made?

Timing is crucial.

The statutory regime changed on December 25, 2025.

Under the amended Article 733 framework, the notification-based period remains three months, while the ultimate period applicable to sales subject to the new regime was reduced from two years to one year. The transitional rule preserves the former rule for sales completed before the amendment entered into force.

Therefore, the original sale date must be established before calculating the applicable deadline.

The Current 2026 Ultimate Period Is One Year

For sales governed by the amended provision, the ultimate statutory period is one year from the sale rather than the former two-year period.

Foreign investors should therefore be careful when relying on older articles stating that pre-emption can always be exercised for two years.

The transition rule matters because older sales remain subject to the previous framework.

Third Check: Was Proper Notification Made?

The sale must be considered together with the statutory notification rules.

Under Article 733, the sale is required to be notified to the other co-owners through the prescribed notarial mechanism.

The three-month exercise period is connected to proper notification.

A buyer should therefore request documentary evidence of notification rather than relying on the seller’s statement that “everyone already knew about the sale.”

Actual Knowledge and Statutory Notification Should Not Be Confused

A co-owner may have heard about the sale informally.

That does not mean the buyer should automatically assume that the statutory notification requirement and related period have been satisfied.

The actual notification documents should be reviewed.

This can be decisive when evaluating whether the pending lawsuit was timely.

Fourth Check: When Was the Pre-emption Lawsuit Filed?

The filing date should be compared with:

the original sale date,

the date of proper notification, and

the statutory regime applicable to that sale.

If the action was filed outside the applicable mandatory periods, that may affect the claim.

These periods are legally significant and should be checked from the court file itself.

Fifth Check: Is the Claimant Actually a Co-Owner?

Statutory pre-emption under Article 732 belongs to qualifying co-owners.

The buyer should verify whether the claimant held the required co-ownership position when the right arose and whether subsequent events affected that status.

Current and historical land-registry records may both be necessary.

Sixth Check: Was the Original Purchaser Already a Co-Owner?

This can fundamentally change the analysis.

Statutory pre-emption under Article 732 is triggered by a sale to a third party outside the existing co-ownership structure.

Official legal analysis published by the Ministry of Justice likewise notes that a sale from one co-owner to another existing co-owner does not constitute the type of third-party sale contemplated by the statutory rule.

Therefore, determine whether the original purchaser was already a registered co-owner before the disputed acquisition.

Seventh Check: Was the Transaction Actually a Sale?

Statutory pre-emption is associated with the legally relevant sale of the ownership share.

Transactions presented as gifts, exchanges or other transfers can create additional disputes concerning their true legal character.

The foreign buyer should review the official transaction records rather than relying only on the seller’s description.

What If the Seller Says the Share Was a Gift?

The underlying transaction should be investigated carefully.

If the transfer genuinely falls outside the statutory pre-emption framework, the result may differ from an ordinary sale.

However, where the legal form does not reflect the actual economic transaction, additional disputes may arise.

A buyer should not purchase a litigated share based solely on the seller’s characterization.

Eighth Check: Has the Claimant Waived Pre-emption?

Waiver can become highly important.

The buyer should determine whether a legally effective waiver exists and whether it applies generally or specifically to the disputed transaction.

Formal requirements should be reviewed carefully.

An informal statement such as “I do not care who buys the share” should not automatically be treated as an enforceable waiver.

Ninth Check: Has the Lawsuit Reached the Valuation Stage?

The 2025 amendments substantially changed the amount associated with exercising statutory pre-emption.

Under the amended Article 734, the court is to determine the current market value of the disputed share without delay. The pre-emption claimant must deposit that court-determined market value together with the relevant land-registry expenses within the final period fixed by the court; otherwise registration in the claimant’s name cannot be ordered.

This is a major change for 2026 cases.

The Old Declared Sale Price Is No Longer the Whole Story

Under the previous regime, disputes often focused heavily on the sale price stated in the official transaction.

The amended Article 734 now centers the pre-emption payment on the market value determined by the court together with the relevant title expenses.

This significantly changes the economic analysis of ongoing cases.

The 2026 Valuation Rule Can Apply to Older Pending Cases

This point is especially important.

The transitional provision enacted with the 2025 amendment expressly provides that the amended Article 734 payment mechanism also applies to lawsuits that were already pending before the amendment entered into force.

Recent Court of Cassation jurisprudence confirms application of the new market-value mechanism to such pending proceedings.

Therefore, a foreign investor buying into an old lawsuit should not automatically calculate risk under the former purchase-price system.

When Is Market Value Determined in an Older Pending Case?

Recent Court of Cassation jurisprudence has addressed this issue following the amendment.

For cases already pending when the new provision entered into force, the Court of Cassation has treated December 25, 2025 as the relevant valuation point for determining the market value under the amended framework; for lawsuits filed after the amendment, the filing date is treated as the relevant point in that analysis.

This can materially affect the economics of a pending lawsuit.

Why Does This Matter to the Foreign Buyer?

Suppose the disputed share was originally sold years earlier for a relatively low declared price.

The foreign investor may assume that the claimant can acquire the share for that old amount.

Under the amended regime, that assumption may be wrong.

The court-determined market value can be substantially different.

However, a higher pre-emption payment does not necessarily eliminate the risk of losing ownership.

Can the Foreign Buyer Receive Money If the Share Is Ultimately Transferred?

The economic consequences must be examined carefully based on the procedural position and the chain of transfers.

Article 734 requires the qualifying pre-emption amount to be deposited before registration in the claimant’s name can be ordered, and the amended provision states that the deposited amount is paid to the relevant person with its accrued returns after the judgment becomes final.

Where the disputed share has changed hands during litigation, the exact entitlement to funds should be assessed from the court file and transaction history.

Losing Ownership and Losing the Entire Investment Are Different Questions

A successful pre-emption claim can threaten the foreign buyer’s ability to retain the share.

But the buyer may separately have contractual rights against the person who sold the litigated share.

For example, the buyer may need to examine whether the seller disclosed the lawsuit and guaranteed clean ownership.

The pre-emption dispute and the buyer’s claims against the seller should therefore be analyzed separately.

What If the Seller Hid the Pending Lawsuit?

This substantially increases the importance of the purchase documents and pre-contract communications.

Preserve:

the property advertisement,

WhatsApp messages,

emails,

due-diligence documents,

sale agreement,

bank transfers, and

any statement concerning litigation.

If the seller expressly represented that the share was free from disputes, this can become important in a subsequent claim.

A “Clean Title” Representation Can Matter

If the purchase agreement states that no litigation exists concerning the share, but an active pre-emption lawsuit was already pending, the foreign buyer should obtain legal advice immediately.

The buyer may need to consider contractual remedies in addition to defending the existing pre-emption proceedings.

What If the Seller Says the Case Is “Almost Finished”?

Never rely on this statement without reading the court file.

“Almost finished” could mean:

the case is close to dismissal,

the claimant has nearly completed the statutory deposit,

an expert valuation has been obtained,

the case is awaiting judgment, or

the first-instance judgment has already been issued and an appeal is pending.

These situations carry very different risks.

Obtain the Complete Court File Before Purchasing

The buyer should examine at least:

the claim petition,

defense submissions,

land-registry evidence,

notification documents,

interim decisions,

expert reports,

valuation reports,

deposit orders,

hearing minutes,

first-instance judgment, if any, and

appeal documents.

The investment decision should be based on the actual litigation record.

What If the Claimant Has Not Deposited the Required Amount?

Under the amended Article 734, the claimant must deposit the court-determined market value and the relevant title expenses within the final period ordered by the court.

If that obligation is not satisfied within the final period, registration in the claimant’s name cannot be ordered under the provision.

The foreign buyer should verify whether such an order has already been issued and whether it has been complied with.

Do Not Assume a Difficult Deposit Means the Case Is Safe

A high market valuation may make it financially difficult for the claimant to continue.

But until the procedural position is clear, the buyer should not assume that the claimant will abandon the action.

Investment decisions should be based on actual court orders and deadlines rather than speculation about the claimant’s finances.

What If the Claimant Withdraws the Lawsuit?

The procedural effect should be verified from the actual court record.

The buyer should not rely on a private promise that the claimant “will withdraw next week.”

A transaction should preferably close only after the legal consequences of any withdrawal, waiver, settlement or final court disposition have been confirmed.

Can the Buyer Negotiate With the Pre-emption Claimant?

Potentially.

A commercial settlement may sometimes eliminate uncertainty more efficiently than purchasing first and litigating afterward.

However, the settlement should be structured so that its effect on the pending lawsuit and the claimed pre-emption right is legally clear.

Do Not Pay the Claimant Informally

If the claimant demands money in exchange for abandoning the case, the foreign investor should not make undocumented payments.

Any settlement should identify the case, disputed share, obligations of the parties and procedural steps to be taken.

The buyer should know exactly what legal protection the payment purchases.

What If the Buyer Has Already Completed the Purchase?

Immediate review of the court file is advisable.

The foreign buyer should determine whether the court has been informed of the transfer and how Article 125 affects the ongoing proceedings.

Ignoring the lawsuit because the buyer’s name now appears in the land registry can significantly increase risk.

Do Not Ignore Court Notifications

If the foreign buyer becomes involved in the proceedings, deadlines may apply.

Court notifications, expert reports and interim orders should be reviewed promptly.

A foreign investor who does not speak the language or resides abroad should arrange appropriate legal representation.

Can the Foreign Buyer Sell the Share Again?

A further transfer may be technically possible depending on the title and procedural situation, but repeatedly transferring a litigated share does not necessarily eliminate the pending dispute.

Article 125 exists precisely because the law contemplates transfer of the subject matter during litigation and regulates the resulting procedural consequences.

A buyer should therefore not treat resale as a simple escape from the lawsuit.

Selling the Share Again Can Create Additional Liability

If the foreign buyer knows that the share is subject to pending litigation and sells it without proper disclosure, a new contractual dispute may arise with the subsequent purchaser.

The investor should obtain advice before attempting to exit the investment through resale.

Can a Buyer Protect Themselves Contractually?

Contractual protection can reduce economic risk even though it may not eliminate the statutory pre-emption claim itself.

The purchase documentation can address:

disclosure of the pending lawsuit,

seller warranties,

responsibility if ownership is lost,

repayment obligations,

litigation expenses,

indemnification, and

payment retention mechanisms.

The transaction should be drafted specifically for the litigation risk rather than using a standard property-share agreement.

Consider Withholding Part of the Purchase Price

Where commercially and legally appropriate, an investor may seek a transaction structure in which part of the consideration is not released until specified litigation risks have been resolved.

The precise mechanism should be legally structured.

Paying the full price immediately for a share that may subsequently be transferred through a successful pre-emption claim can create unnecessary recovery risk.

Independent Valuation Is Particularly Important in 2026

Because the amended Article 734 now uses court-determined market value, an independent valuation can help the investor understand the likely economic exposure.

The investor should compare:

the price being paid now,

the likely court valuation,

the property’s development potential,

the claimant’s economic incentive to continue, and

the investor’s recovery rights if title is ultimately lost.

Foreign Acquisition Rules Still Apply

Even if the pre-emption lawsuit can be resolved, the foreign investor’s eligibility to acquire the relevant property must be examined separately.

Nationality restrictions, statutory acquisition limits and property-specific restrictions can still apply.

The fact that the investor is purchasing only a fractional share does not eliminate the need for foreign-acquisition due diligence.

Check Whether the Property Is Agricultural Land

Agricultural classification can introduce additional issues.

The foreign buyer should determine the nature and permitted use of the property independently from the pre-emption litigation.

A favorable result in the pre-emption case does not guarantee that the investor’s development or investment plan is feasible.

Check for Other Pending Litigation

A pre-emption lawsuit may not be the only legal problem affecting the share.

The investor should investigate whether the property is also subject to:

partition proceedings,

inheritance disputes,

title cancellation claims,

mortgages,

attachments,

zoning disputes, or

other annotations and restrictions.

A share should be evaluated within the entire title and litigation context.

What If a Partition Lawsuit Is Also Pending?

This can substantially increase complexity.

The investor may simultaneously face a pre-emption claim seeking transfer of the acquired share and a partition action seeking termination of the entire co-ownership structure.

The two proceedings and their practical consequences should be analyzed together before the investor pays the purchase price.

What If the Pre-emption Lawsuit Is Dismissed at First Instance?

Do not automatically assume the dispute has ended.

The buyer should determine whether appellate review remains available or has been pursued.

The safest assessment should be based on whether the judgment has become final where finality is legally relevant to the intended transaction.

A Pending Appeal Still Creates Risk

A first-instance victory can significantly improve the seller’s position but may not provide the same certainty as a final judgment.

The buyer should review:

the judgment,

grounds for dismissal,

appeal petition,

response, and

current appellate status.

The purchase price should reflect the remaining uncertainty.

What If the Case Has Been Finally Dismissed?

A final dismissal may substantially reduce the specific litigation risk arising from that action.

However, the buyer should still verify the exact scope and reason for the judgment and conduct ordinary title due diligence.

Do not assume that one concluded lawsuit proves the property is free from every other risk.

Can the Buyer Recover the Purchase Price If Ownership Is Lost?

Potentially, depending on the purchase agreement, seller representations and circumstances.

The buyer may need to pursue contractual repayment, compensation or other remedies against the seller.

The existence of a successful pre-emption action does not automatically determine every issue between the buyer and the person who sold the share.

What If the Seller Has No Assets After Ownership Is Lost?

This illustrates why pre-purchase protection matters.

A legal right to recover money can be economically worthless if the seller has no collectible assets.

The investor should therefore consider seller solvency and appropriate payment protection before acquiring a litigated share.

Do Not Wait Until the Pre-emption Judgment Becomes Final to Examine Recovery

If there is substantial risk that the foreign buyer will lose the share, potential claims against the seller should be assessed early.

Relevant limitation periods, evidence preservation and collection risks should be considered.

The buyer should avoid focusing exclusively on defending the pre-emption action while ignoring the financial recovery side of the dispute.

Preserve All Payment Evidence

Keep complete records of:

purchase price,

taxes,

land-registry expenses,

agent commission,

legal expenses, and

other transaction costs.

If ownership is eventually lost and a separate recovery claim becomes necessary, these documents can become important when calculating the buyer’s financial position.

Preserve Evidence of Improvements

If the foreign investor has spent money improving the property after acquisition, document the expenditure.

Invoices, contracts, photographs and payment records should be preserved.

The legal treatment of improvements will depend on the circumstances, but undocumented expenditure is substantially harder to establish.

Avoid Major Construction While Title Is Under Serious Challenge

A foreign investor should be cautious about investing substantial additional capital in property subject to a strong pending pre-emption claim.

The investor may ultimately lose ownership of the share.

Development expenditures should therefore be evaluated against the litigation risk.

What If the Foreign Buyer Lives Outside Turkey?

The litigation can still require active representation.

A foreign investor should ensure that court notifications and procedural developments are monitored.

Appropriate representation can allow the buyer’s interests to be protected without remaining physically present throughout the proceedings.

Power of Attorney May Be Necessary

Where the buyer lives abroad, a properly structured power of attorney may allow legal counsel to participate in the proceedings, submit evidence, attend hearings and take other authorized procedural steps.

The authority should reflect the actual needs of the case.

2026 Practical Legal Strategy

A foreign investor considering the purchase of a share already subject to a pre-emption lawsuit should not purchase solely because the seller remains registered as owner. Registration does not eliminate a pending statutory claim seeking transfer of that ownership.

The first step is to obtain the complete court file and historical land-registry records. The investor should determine who originally sold the share, whether the purchaser was an outside third party, when the sale occurred, whether proper notification was made and whether the pre-emption action was filed within the applicable statutory periods.

For transactions governed by the post-December 25, 2025 regime, the ultimate exercise period under Article 733 has been reduced from two years to one year, while the three-month period linked to proper notification remains. Earlier sales are protected by the transitional rule and require separate analysis under the former timing provision.

The investor must also apply the new Article 734 economic framework. The court now determines the market value of the disputed share, and the claimant must deposit that value together with the applicable title expenses within the final period ordered by the court. Importantly, the new payment mechanism also applies to lawsuits already pending when the amendment entered into force.

If the defendant sells the disputed share while litigation continues, the investor must assess Article 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Transfer of the litigated property does not automatically destroy the pending action; procedural consequences arise concerning continuation of the lawsuit against the transferee or the other statutory option available to the claimant.

The safest investment strategy is therefore to treat a share subject to an active pre-emption lawsuit as litigated title, price the risk accordingly and obtain contractual protection against loss of ownership.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya can examine the pre-emption case file, historical title transfers, statutory notification documents, valuation evidence and proposed purchase agreement before the foreign investor acquires the disputed share.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a foreign buyer purchase a share while a pre-emption lawsuit is pending?

Potentially, but purchasing during the litigation does not automatically eliminate the existing claim. The procedural consequences of transferring the disputed share must be examined.

Can the foreign buyer ultimately lose ownership of the share?

Yes. If the statutory pre-emption claim succeeds and the legal requirements are fulfilled, the disputed ownership may ultimately be registered in the claimant’s name.

Does being registered at the land registry protect the new buyer completely?

No. Registration is important, but it does not automatically extinguish a pre-existing statutory pre-emption action.

What happens if the defendant sells the share during the lawsuit?

Article 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure becomes relevant. The claimant may have statutory options concerning continuation of the case after transfer of the subject matter.

What is the pre-emption deadline in 2026?

For sales governed by the amended Article 733, the right is subject to the three-month period connected to proper notification and an ultimate one-year period from the sale. The transition rule means earlier sales may remain subject to the previous regime.

Does the claimant still pay the old sale price?

Under the amended Article 734 framework, the court determines the market value of the disputed share, and the claimant must deposit that amount together with the applicable title expenses within the court’s final period.

Does the new market-value rule apply to lawsuits filed before December 25, 2025?

Yes. The transitional provision provides for application of the amended Article 734 mechanism to lawsuits already pending when the amendment entered into force.

What if the seller never told me about the lawsuit?

Preserve the agreement, advertisement, messages and payment records. The nondisclosure may become important when evaluating contractual repayment, compensation or other remedies against the seller.

Should I build on the property while the pre-emption case is pending?

Substantial additional investment should be approached cautiously because ownership remains under challenge. The litigation strength and potential financial consequences should be evaluated first.

What should a foreign investor do before buying the disputed share?

Review the complete court file and historical title records, verify the original sale and notification dates, determine whether the claimant satisfies the statutory requirements, examine the current court valuation and deposit position, assess Article 125 if the share is being transferred during litigation, confirm foreign-acquisition eligibility and obtain contractual protection against loss of ownership before paying the purchase price.

Legal Support for Foreign Buyers Purchasing Shares Under Pre-emption Litigation

Foreign investors can face substantial financial risk when purchasing a land or property share already subject to a statutory pre-emption lawsuit. Even after registration in the foreign buyer’s name, an existing claimant may continue seeking acquisition of the disputed share under the statutory framework, and a transfer during litigation can create additional procedural consequences.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign nationals and investors with statutory pre-emption disputes, co-owned property acquisitions, litigated title due diligence, land-registry disputes, ownership-share transactions and recovery claims where purchased ownership is subsequently lost. Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya can examine the complete court file, historical ownership transfers, notification records, 2026 valuation requirements and proposed transaction documents to determine whether purchasing the disputed share is legally and commercially defensible.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22

WhatsApp: +90 532 769 22 22

Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr