Jewelry given to the bride at the engagement ceremony is considered unjustified enrichment and not a donation contract if the wedding does not take place.
Oku.Az reports that this was indicated in the Supreme Court’s decision on a specific case.
From the circumstances of the case, it appears that an engagement ceremony was held between the defendant and the plaintiff’s son on 06/01/2022, and the wedding ceremony and celebration of the marriage are scheduled for June 25, 2022. The plaintiff gave jewelry to the defendant as a wedding gift, but the marriage did not take place and the relationship broke down. After that, the plaintiff went to court to demand the return of the jewelry given to the defendant at the engagement ceremony.
Although the lower courts noted in their ruling that the jewelry was donated by the plaintiff to the defendant as a wedding gift, they did not take into account that the wedding did not take place. Therefore, it was decided to keep the jewelry with the accused.
However, as the last judicial instance of the case, the Supreme Court considered that article 673 of the Civil Code does not constitute the legal basis of the present lawsuit. Thus, the gifts, including jewelry, that the groom or his parents give to the young bride at the engagement ceremony are given in the hope that an official marriage will take place in the future. If the official marriage is not celebrated in the future, the acquisition is based on a later termination basis. The claim in the said case is related to the demand for jewelery given at the engagement ceremony because the official marriage did not take place, that is, the engagement did not result in the celebration of the official marriage.
The Supreme Court noted that articles 1091 and 1092 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan can be considered as a legal basis for the claim, based on the fact that the enrichment related to the acquisition of gold and jewelry is based on a basis that has subsequently disappeared, and the duty to return what was obtained as a consequence of unjust enrichment. It should be noted that the absence of reasons to deny the donation does not preclude the return of the gift on the basis that the enrichment due to the donated object is based on its subsequent disappearance.
Therefore, the court accepted the plaintiff’s complaint and a decision was made to purchase the jewelry from the defendant.
