17.07.2026 11:20
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation set a landmark precedent by changing its long-standing practice regarding the sharing of wedding jewelry. Under the new practice, jewelry will, as a rule, belong to the person to whom it was worn. While women-specific ornaments such as bracelets and necklaces are considered the bride's property, items of economic value worn by the groom, such as money, quarter gold coins, and watches, will belong to the groom.
A landmark decision from the Court of Cassation has been issued regarding the sharing of wedding jewelry, one of the most debated topics in divorce cases. The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation justified its revised jurisprudence from 2024 with a new ruling.
Previously, gold and jewelry items were considered to belong to the woman regardless of who wore them at the wedding, but this approach has changed with the new practice. Now, jewelry will generally belong to the person to whom it was given.
WOMAN-SPECIFIC JEWELRY TO THE BRIDE, OTHER ITEMS TO THE GROOM
According to the new jurisprudence, woman-specific jewelry such as bracelets and necklaces will be considered the bride's property. Items of economic value that are not specific to women, such as money, quarter gold coins, and watches given to the man, will belong to the groom.
The Court of Cassation also emphasized that if there is a different agreement between the parties or if local customs and traditions are proven, the sharing will be done accordingly.
WHY THE CHANGE?
The ruling noted that societal traditions and customs, as well as economic relations, change over time. It stated that at weddings, not only woman-specific jewelry but also money and gifts of different economic value are given to contribute to the newlyweds' shared life, and this change necessitated the new jurisprudence.
Additionally, it was noted that if a dispute arises over whether a piece of jewelry is specific to a woman or a man, an expert examination can be conducted.
FAMILY COURT'S DECISION OVERTURNED
In the case that led to the ruling, the woman claimed that the 6 quarter gold coins given to the groom at the wedding also belonged to her. The first instance court and the Regional Court of Appeals accepted this claim.
Upon appeal, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that the 6 quarter gold coins given directly to the groom and not considered woman-specific jewelry belonged to the man. Accordingly, it was determined that the woman could only claim rights over the 10 quarter gold coins belonging to her, and the Family Court's decision was overturned.