DECISIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE JUDICIARY REGARDING THE JEWELRY RECEIVABLE
JUDICIARY HGK – 2020/46 K., 2017/2-2065 E., 23.01.2020 T.
"... Jewelry shall be deemed to belong to the female spouse, regardless of which spouse wears it during the marriage, unless there is an agreement to the contrary between the spouses or a local custom in this regard."
JUDICIARY HGK – 2020/240 K., 2017/3-1040 E., 04.03.2020 T.
"... Unless there is an agreement between the spouses to the contrary or there is a local custom in this regard, the bracelet, which is a woman-specific jewelry item, is deemed to be donated to the female spouse, regardless of who wears it to which spouse during the marriage, and it becomes her personal property."
JUDICIARY HGK – 2020/367 K., 2017/3-1055 E., 09.06.2020 T.
"... The defendant did not bear the burden of proof by denying the lawsuit in its entirety and claiming that he never touched the jewelry. However, if the defendant claims that although he took the alleged jewelry, he returned it or claimed that he took it with the intention of never returning it, the burden of proof is reversed and the defendant bears the burden of proving his claim."
JUDICIARY HGK – 2020/408 K., 2017/3-35 E., 16.06.2020 T.
"... Although it is a presumption that the jewelry belongs to the woman and that the woman will keep it with her and take it with her when she leaves, in the concrete case, it should be accepted that it is fixed with a written document (written document of property deed) that the woman delivered her jewelry to the defendant."
JUDICIARY HGK – 2020/835 K., 2017/1512 E., 04.11.2020 T.
"... Even if there is a safe belonging to the plaintiff at home, as the defendant claims in his reply, it is contrary to the ordinary course of life to accept that the plaintiff took the safe and/or the jewelry in the safe with him in this situation - when he could not even take his personal belongings. Therefore, it is contrary to the procedure and law for the court to make a decision of resistance to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove that the defendant delivered the jewelery to the plaintiff in the case at hand, where the burden of proof belongs to the defendant, without considering that the defendant must prove that the defendant delivered the jewelery to the plaintiff."
JUDICIARY HGK – 2020/918 K., 2017/2443 E., 18.11.2020 T.
"... It is understood that the existence of a total of eight bracelets, including five bracelets and three three-strand twisted bracelets, which are the subject of the claim, has been proved with the photograph in the file, which is understood to have been taken after the wedding and in which the wife is seen as a single person, but the existence of 58 quarters and 12 half gold coins has not been proved. In that case, it is necessary to decide to partially accept the lawsuit in terms of bracelets in the face of the proof of the existence of jewelry items in terms of the 8 bracelets requested by the wife and the proof that the jewelery worn was cashed and the house was bought, as explained by the witness statements."