ENTRANCE
Legal disputes concerning the return or reimbursement of jewelry worn by relatives or guests
before or during the wedding ceremony, whether during or after the marriage is dissolved,
are a common practice but lack direct legal regulation. Therefore, cases known as “jewelry
receivables,” “jewelry return,” or simply “jewelry lawsuits” present numerous legal and
procedural issues that are controversial both in legal doctrine and in Supreme Court decisions.
This article will first examine the conceptual basis, legal nature, and status of the ornament case in Turkish law. It
will then discuss the problems encountered in practice, Supreme Court precedents, and criticisms. Finally,
recommendations for a more consistent practice in this area will be presented.
1-) Concept and Historical Development
1.1. The concept of “ornament” and “ornamental goods”
“Ornament” in its classical sense refers to ornaments, specifically jewelry, and objects made from precious
metals. In civil law, the term “ornament” requires a more functional definition: jewelry worn during wedding
ceremonies, typically containing valuables such as gold, silver, and precious stones, and items that must be
identified by their type, fineness, and weight, are considered “ornament.”
This definition should be narrowed down, as in practice, not only gold jewelry but also valuable items (e.g.,
watches allegedly given as jewelry, ruby jewelry, etc.) can be the subject of dispute. Therefore, the type, weight,
fineness, and value of the jewelry should be clearly stated in the petition, and if possible, supported by documents
or photographs.
1.2. Historical background and influence of legal tradition
While the Turkish legal system lacks a direct regulation of the Civil Code, traditions, customs, and Supreme Court
precedents have played a decisive role in this area. In traditional societies, jewelry worn at weddings was
generally considered a favor to the bride, resulting in a rich legacy of jurisprudence regarding the ownership of
the jewelry. However, this legacy harbors numerous contradictions and uncertainties within the modern legal
system.
2-) Legal Nature and Basic Principles
2.1. Legal nature of the adornment case
Jewelry claims have traditionally been considered “claims for compensation.” The primary reason for this is
that if the jewelry cannot be returned in its original state, claiming its price is a form of compensation. As a
result of this approach, a general statute of limitations of 10 years applies to jewelry claims (under the Code
of Obligations). Some rulings and doctrinal opinions also support this approach.
On the other hand, some opinions evaluate the claim for jewelry in terms of “restitution of the plaintiff’s right of
ownership” or “restitution obligation arising from the unjust enrichment of the acquirer.”
2.2. Distinction between personal property and acquired property
The debate over who owns jewelry often revolves around the distinction between “personal property and acquired property.”
According to the Turkish Civil Code (TCC), personal property belongs to one spouse and is not shared under the regime of
participation in acquired property.
The Court of Cassation’s established jurisprudence has adopted the presumption that “jewelry, regardless of how it was given on the
occasion of the wedding, is considered donated to the woman and is her personal property.” This presumption operates in the absence
of evidence to the contrary. This precedent has been criticized in scholarship for occasionally contradicting the wording of the
legislation and legal principles.
2.3. Presumption and burden of proof
Court of Appeals precedents provide a presumption that the jewelry belongs to the woman. This presumption requires
the defendant to bear the burden of proof to the contrary. In other words, if the spouse claims that the jewelry they
were given does not belong to them, they must prove it.
While this situation aligns with classical principles of evidentiary law, it raises controversial issues.
Some scholars argue that the presumption system is overly general and fails to adequately consider
situations where spouses freely enter into different arrangements.
3-) Elements and Procedural Conditions of the Jewelry Case
3.1. Parties and situations in which a lawsuit can be filed
While jewelry claims are often brought in conjunction with divorce proceedings, they are a non
essential supplementary lawsuit. In other words, jewelry claims can be filed without a divorce case.
The party filing the lawsuit must be the person alleging the jewelry was stolen. The defendant can be the
person currently in possession of the jewelry (spouse or third party).
In some case laws, it is also accepted that the request for jewelry may have different legal consequences depending on the way the
jewelry is given between the parties and the person wearing it.
3.2. Competent and authorized court
The competent court is the family court (in provinces with independent family courts). In places where there
is no family court, the case can be heard in the civil court of first instance, acting as a family court.
According to the Civil Procedure Code, the competent court is the court in the defendant’s place of residence (Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Code).
3.3. Conditions of the case– Statute of Limitations:The general statute of limitations for jewelry receivables lawsuits is 10 years.– Mortar:It is subject to proportional fees; the court fee is determined by taking into account the value of the jewelry.– Procedural process:In the petition, the type, quantity, fineness, weight of the jewelry and the requested price
must be clearly stated.
3.4. Proof and evidence
The plaintiff must prove the existence of the jewelry, the date of its processing, and the defendant’s possession.
Evidence such as witness testimony, photographs, invoices, and jewelry receipt records may be used for this purpose.
The defendant has the burden of proving that the items belong to him or that the plaintiff’s claim is unjust.
The judge has a wide discretion in evaluating evidence; however, this discretion must be in accordance with the
procedural rules and the criteria for evaluating evidence.
4-) Problems and Discussions Encountered in Practice
4.1. Limits of the presumption system and uncertainties in jurisprudence
The Supreme Court’s presumption that “all jewelry given at a wedding belongs to the woman” has been
particularly criticized. In some cases, factors such as a written or implied agreement between the spouses and the
different social and economic statuses of the bride and groom can be overlooked. Doctrine maintains that this
presumption should not be absolute.
There are also some signs of change in the application of presumption in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. For
example, there are assessments suggesting that attention should be paid to changing traditions, modernizing marriage
structures, and diversifying spouses’ economic contributions.
4.2. Jewellery given between spouses and complications
In practice, issues such as who wore it, whose relatives gave it, and whether it was given for a specific purpose can
be subject to dispute. For example, whether a piece of jewelry was given by the bride’s family or the groom’s
family at the wedding can be interpreted differently depending on this distinction. While the Supreme Court tends
to rule that the jewelry belongs to the woman regardless of this distinction, this approach may not be appropriate
in every specific case.
4.3. What happens if a return is not possible?
If the jewelry cannot be physically returned (for example, if it has been lost, exchanged, or devalued), then
the right to claim its value becomes paramount. In this case, the compensation aspect prevails, and the case
is considered a compensation claim.
However, issues such as the statute of limitations, valuation, and interest calculations arise in determining
the price. Furthermore, a fair measure must be found between the price demand date and the date of the
lawsuit.
4.4. Limit of finality, appeal and cassation
Under Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, the question of whether jewelry claims and similar accessory claims
are subject to appeal is important in terms of the concept of “limit of finality.” For example, in some
decisions, the Supreme Court of Appeals has rejected appeal petitions that were within the limit of review in
cases filed regarding jewelry claims.
4.5. Judge’s discretion
Some courts may undervalue jewelry, and there may be a discrepancy between the parties’
requests and the judge’s assessment. The judge must determine the value based on all the
evidence, expert reports, and social criteria.
5-) Supreme Court Jurisprudence Analysis and Criticism
5.1. Established precedents
The Court of Cassation’s classical jurisprudence establishes a presumption that “jewelry worn at a wedding belongs to the woman, regardless of
who gave it to her.” This presumption applies in cases where no proof to the contrary is provided.
Some decisions state that if a divorce case and a jewelry claim case are combined, the appeal
petitions should be rejected in terms of jewelry claims.
5.2. New trends and content changes
In recent years, some Supreme Court decisions have interpreted exceptions to the traditional presumption more flexibly. For
example, situations such as the gift of jewelry as a financial contribution at the beginning of the bride and groom’s life
together, or the special effort or contribution of one spouse, may be taken into account.
The decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers to overturn the decision to resist in 2023 can be considered as
an indicator of the change in jurisprudence in this field.
6-) Suggestions
6.1. The need for regulation by legislation
In an increasingly important area like jewelry litigation, it would be beneficial for the legislature to provide clear
regulations. For example, a special provision regarding the “return and payment of jewelry” could be added to the
section on marital property regimes in the Civil Code. This would both ensure uniformity of application and
alleviate the burden on the courts.
6.2. Re-evaluation of the presumption regime
The Supreme Court’s approach to presumption should be reviewed, and agreements regarding the ownership of jewelry, the spouses’ economic
contributions, and the specific facts of the case should be taken into greater consideration. The presumption should be structured as a
functional framework, not an absolute one.
6.3. Rules of evidence and expert evaluation
It is recommended that courts give particular weight to evidence such as witness statements, expert reports, and
technical expert opinions in their evaluation of evidence, and use market-appropriate criteria in determining value.
6.4. Court of Cassation jurisprudence and principle decisions
The Court of Cassation’s decisions on this matter will be guiding in practice. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers’
clarifications on the situation are particularly important regarding the limits of the presumption, exceptions, and
appellate review.
Conclusion
Jewellery receivables are a sensitive issue, fraught with complexities both in doctrine and practice.
The lack of direct regulation in the legislation, the tendency for Supreme Court precedents to
change over time, and the numerous differences in fact make these cases special and demanding.
Re-evaluating the presumption system, clarifying the rules of evidence, and legislative regulation
could enable a more equitable and consistent application in this area.
MOST WONDERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORNAMENT CASE
1-) As a rule, to whom does the jewellery worn at the wedding belong?
General jurisprudence holds that wedding jewelry, regardless of who wears it, generally belongs to the bride. Exceptions may
be made for jewelry specific to men (watches, rosaries, etc.) and concrete evidence of custom.
2-) Which court has jurisdiction in the adornment case?
The Family Court has jurisdiction; if there is no family court, the Civil Court of First Instance acts as the Family
Court.
3-) Where is the competent court?
The general rule is the court of the defendant’s place of residence; however, depending on the specific case, contractual/evidentiary connections
may allow for different jurisdictional claims (e.g., tort claims, etc.). (General Civil Procedure Code rule.)
4-) Is it a refund or a fee requested?
In practice, the safest way is to make a progressive request: first, return in kind; if not possible, the price.
5-) Is there a statute of limitations if the jewelry is requested to be returned as is?
Since return in kind is essentially a right, the statute of limitations does not apply; however, the circumstances of the concrete case are important.
6-) What is the statute of limitations for a claim for compensation (cash consideration)?
Generally, it is 10 years; in practice, it is often started after the divorce decision becomes final.
7-) On what date is the valuation (price determination) made?
As a rule, the court determines the price based on the market value at the date of the lawsuit; interest is also usually accrued from the
date of the lawsuit.
😎 Is it mandatory to write the price of each gold coin individually in the petition?
No. YHGK has ruled that it is not mandatory to show a separate price for each piece of gold that is considered as
jewelry.
9-) Who bears the burden of proof? What does “presumption of protection of women” mean?
Under normal circumstances, a woman is considered to have carried her jewelry. Any unusual allegations, such as “she was
taken by force, forced to leave her home, or prevented from leaving,” must be proven by the party making the claim. (Court of
Appeals’ line and practice.)
10-) Which evidence is most useful?
Wedding video/photographs, “jewelry list/jewelry certificate”, witnesses, jewelry/cash records, bank transactions, messages, camera
recordings; in short, all kinds of evidence within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code.
11-) Are the gold pieces worn by the groom’s family at the wedding also considered to belong to the bride?
The rule is yes; the wedding and donation will be taken into account, not the wearer’s identity. However, exceptions are possible for jewelry specific to
men or for customs and traditions that prove otherwise.
12-) Can a lawsuit be filed for jewelry if there is no official marriage?
Except in very exceptional cases, the jewelry dispute is considered to arise from the marital relationship; if there is no official
marriage, disputes regarding receivables/entitlements may arise in accordance with general provisions and the assessment of
duties and authority may differ.
13-) Is it harmful to just ask for a fee?
If only the price is requested, flexibility is lost in the scenario where the goods are found/delivered later. Therefore, it is considered safer to request the
same first, or if not, the price (also in enforcement proceedings, facilitated by Article 24 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code).
14-) Can “refund in kind + the price on the execution date” be requested together?
The Court of Cassation stated that when a direct restitution order is issued, the compensation regime will already come into effect at the
execution stage in accordance with Article 24 of the EBL; therefore, there may not be a separate legal benefit in terms of a “secondary
compensation claim”.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS REGARDING THE ZIYNET CASE
1-) COURT OF APPEALS 3RD CIVIL CHAMBER 2014/21125 E. 2015/17417 K. (TO WHOM DO
THE JEWELRY WORN AT THE WEDDING BELONG)
“…As a rule, the jewellery worn during the wedding, regardless of who gave it to whom, is considered to have been donated to
the woman and is now considered her personal property.
However, the court accepted that 1 bracelet, 4 half gold coins and 47 quarter gold coins worn by the groom at
the wedding of the parties belonged to the groom and only the gold coins worn by the woman were accepted.
In that case, the court should decide to accept the case in terms of all the jewellery that was determined to have been
worn by the bride and groom during the wedding, in the expert report on which the judgment was based.
The court’s decision to render a written verdict is contrary to procedure and law and is grounds for reversal.”
2-) COURT OF APPEALS 2ND CIVIL CHAMBER 2014/26823 E. 2014/26223 K. (WHAT IS
THE RETURN CONDITION FOR JEWELRY?)
“…The jewelry and ornaments worn at the wedding are deemed to belong to the woman unless otherwise agreed upon by the
parties. Unless it can be proven that they were given with the condition of non-refundability, the husband’s cashing in and
spending them to cover his debts does not relieve him of the obligation to repay them. In his response to the woman’s
demands for jewelry and ornaments, the plaintiff-defendant husband declared and admitted that “they were all used to cover
the engagement, wedding, and household debts.” He also failed to prove that the jewelry was given to him by the woman with
no return. For these reasons, while the request for jewelry should have been accepted, the written decision was contrary to
procedure and law, necessitating reversal.
3-) COURT OF APPEALS 2ND CIVIL CHAMBER 2014/27096 E. 2015/100 K. (ARE JEWELRY
CONSIDERED AS ACQUIRED PROPERTY?)
“…The jewelry worn by a woman at a wedding is considered a donation and is her personal property. Unless it is alleged
and proven that the jewelry was given with no intention of being returned, the recipient is obligated to return it. In our
case, the evidence gathered establishes that the 70 small gold coins presented to the plaintiff woman at the wedding
and the five bracelets given to her by her husband’s family were given to the jeweler by her husband and father as
payment for a debt. The plaintiff woman did not donate the 70 quarter-gold coins to her husband, and the husband has
no authority to spend these gold coins on his father’s personal debt. Since the defendant also admitted that the 70
quarter-gold coins were given to the jeweler by his father as payment for the five bracelets purchased for the bride, it
would be inappropriate to grant the plaintiff woman’s request regarding these gold coins, but it was not appropriate to
render a written judgment.
4-) COURT OF APPEALS 3RD CIVIL CHAMBER 2016/20430 E. 2017/10755 K. (WHO
HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN JEWELRY?)
“…In the concrete case, the plaintiff claimed that after the marriage, the 8 bracelets were taken by the other defendant …, who
is the father of the defendant …, on the condition that they be returned in kind; however, he could not prove this matter.
Because the statements of the plaintiff’s witnesses heard regarding this matter are based on hearsay, and the said witnesses
do not have eyewitness knowledge that the 8 bracelets were taken by the defendant … to be returned. The statements of the
defendants … and … and the defendant’s witnesses relate to the fact that the 8 bracelets mentioned in the plaintiff’s
statements were taken from the jeweler by the defendant …, with the plaintiff’s knowledge, to be worn as a trust at the
wedding, and that they were returned by … again to the jeweler after the wedding. In this case, while the lawsuit filed against
the defendant … in respect of the 8 bracelets should have been dismissed, the court, with the erroneous assessment, accepted
the lawsuit in respect of the defendant …, which is inaccurate and requires reversal…”
5-) COURT OF APPEALS 2ND CIVIL CHAMBER 2019/2392 E. 2019/4380 K. (IS IT
POSSIBLE TO PROVE BY EXPERT EXAMINATION IN A JEWELRY RECEIVABLE
CASE?)
“…in her petition, she requested the collection of 42,636.00 TL, including legal interest, from the man, which
consists of 90 quarter gold coins, 17 bracelets and 3000.00 TL worth of jewelry given to her at the wedding. … A
judgment cannot be reached by referring to any document such as the petition or expert report. … making a
judgment without showing the type, quality, quantity and value of the jewelry individually is against procedure
and law and requires reversal…”
The Importance of Legal Support
Ziynet Litigation requires technical knowledge, legislative expertise, and deep expertise in judicial
practices. While the legal provisions are clear, each case has its own unique circumstances, and even a
small mistake can lead to loss of rights. Therefore, working with an experienced attorney from the
beginning of the process is crucial to determining the right strategy, protecting your rights, and
achieving the swiftest resolution.
It’s important to remember that every step taken during the litigation process has legal and financial implications.
A professional lawyer will guide you not only in preparing the petition but also in gathering evidence,
representing the court, negotiating, and pursuing potential alternative solutions.
In order not to risk your rights and to manage the process safely, it is recommended that you consult a specialist lawyer.