17.10.2026 11:52
The 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that a jewelry receivable adjudicated together with a divorce case may be subject to enforcement even before the divorce judgment becomes final. The request of the man who objected to the enforcement proceedings initiated by his ex-spouse for the gold was rejected at all stages. The High Court upheld the Regional Court of Appeal’s decision, stating that the jewelry receivable affects only assets.
The 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that the finalization of the divorce judgment is not required for a court decision concerning a jewelry receivable to be put into enforcement. With the precedent decision, enforcement proceedings based on a judgment may be initiated even before the divorce becomes final.
FORMER SPOUSE INITIATED ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR GOLD
After a marriage lasting for years, the couple who decided to divorce also ended up in court over the gold. Although there was a decision of the 1st Family Court concerning the gold (jewelry) receivable, the aggrieved woman, left empty-handed, initiated enforcement proceedings against her former husband.
The former husband rushed to the Enforcement Civil Court and objected to the enforcement proceedings, drawing attention to the fact that the divorce case had not become final. Stating that, before the divorce judgment became final, receivables of an ancillary (dependent) nature could not be requested either, he sought a decision to cancel the proceedings. The Enforcement Civil Court decided to reject the complaint. The plaintiff former husband appealed the decision.
THE JEWELRY RECEIVABLE WAS NOT CONSIDERED AN APPENDAGE OF THE DIVORCE
The 8th Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Appeal (BAM) noted that the basis of the judgment-based enforcement proceedings initiated by the creditor defendant against the debtor was the judgment of the 1st Family Court numbered 2025/17 K., and that in the proceedings, collection of the return of the jewelry ordered under the judgment and the litigation costs and attorney's fee awarded in this regard was requested. Emphasizing that, by its nature, the complaint was subject to a complaint without a time limit, the Chamber's decision included the following statements:
“Provisions concerning family and personal law cannot be made subject to enforcement unless they become final. In addition, provisions concerning compensation, attorney's fee, and litigation costs, which are ancillary to the divorce judgment, are subject to the same rule. However, the part of the judgment concerning the jewelry receivable, which was heard together with the divorce case and ordered under the judgment, is a judgment relating to performance that does not lead to a change in the parties' personal or familial circumstances, can in its consequences only affect the parties' assets, and is not of an ancillary nature to the divorce judgment but is independent thereof. By these characteristics, judgments concerning a jewelry receivable, like other judgments relating to performance, may be put into enforcement without becoming final. In the concrete case as well, since the subject put into enforcement concerns the return of the jewelry and the litigation costs and attorney's fee awarded in this regard, even though it was heard together with the divorce case, it may be put into enforcement without becoming final because it is not of an ancillary nature to the divorce judgment. Therefore, it is appropriate to decide to reject the plaintiff's request directed at this.”
THE COURT OF CASSATION UPHELD THE DECISION
The plaintiff husband, who also left the 8th Civil Chamber of the BAM empty-handed, appealed the decision to the Court of Cassation. The 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation also found the BAM decision appropriate. The Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court of Appeal's decision that these receivables may be enforced even if the divorce judgment has not become final, stating that jewelry receivables do not cause any change in the parties' personal circumstances and affect only their assets.