Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2020:484
Date: 2020-06-18
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Justice and home affairs;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Anonymised version 
Translation  C-540/19 — 1 
Case C-540/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
16 July 2019 
Referring court: 
Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
5 June 2019 
Defendant and appellant: 
WV 
Applicant and respondent: 
Landkreis Harburg  
  
BUNDESGERICHTSHOF 
(FEDERAL COURT OF JUSTICE) 
ORDER 
… 
in the family matter of 
WV, … (Austria), 
defendant and appellant, 
… 
v 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 6. 2019 — CASE C-540/19 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
Landkreis Harburg (the administrative district of Harburg), … Winsen (Luhe), 
applicant and respondent, 
… 
[Or. 2] The Twelfth Civil Chamber of the Bundesgerichtshof … 
made the following order: 
I. The proceedings are stayed. 
II. The following question concerning the interpretation of Article 3(b) of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, 
applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in 
matters relating to maintenance obligations (European Maintenance 
Regulation) is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a 
preliminary ruling: 
Can a public body which has provided a maintenance creditor with social 
assistance benefits in accordance with provisions of public law invoke the 
place of jurisdiction at the place of habitual residence of the maintenance 
creditor under Article 3(b) of the European Maintenance Regulation in the 
case where it asserts the maintenance creditor’s maintenance claim under 
civil law, transferred to it on the basis of the granting of social assistance by 
way of statutory subrogation, against the maintenance debtor by way of 
recourse? [Or. 3] 
Grounds: 
1 I. Facts of the case 
2 The applicant, as a local social assistance institution, is a public body. It is 
asserting claims for parental maintenance for the period from April 2017 against 
the defendant on the basis of transferred rights. 
3 The defendant’s mother, born in 1948, (‘the assistance recipient’) has been living 
in a retirement and care home in Cologne since 2009. She receives regular social 
assistance from the applicant in accordance with the Twelfth Book of the Social 
Code (SGB XII), because her own income (social security benefit, nursing 
housing allowance, statutory nursing insurance benefits) and her personal assets 
are not sufficient to cover in full her residential costs. The defendant lives in 
Vienna (Austria). 
4 In these proceedings, the applicant is bringing an action against the defendant for 
payment of maintenance arrears of EUR 8 510 for the period from April 2017 to 
April 2018 and for payment of regular maintenance of EUR 853 per mensem from 
May 2018. The applicant claims that the assistance recipient’s parental 
WV 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
maintenance claim, directed against the defendant, has, pursuant to 
Paragraph 94(1) of the SGB XII, been transferred to the applicant, because it 
regularly granted the assistance recipient social assistance benefits in the 
maintenance period of interest here which significantly exceed the maintenance 
amount requested. The defendant submits that the German courts lack 
international jurisdiction. [Or. 4] 
5 The Amtsgericht (District Court) took the view that the German courts have no 
international jurisdiction and dismissed the application as inadmissible. It stated 
that jurisdiction under Article 3(b) of the European Maintenance Regulation is in 
particular excluded, because the creditor within the meaning of that provision is 
only the maintenance creditor itself, and not a state body asserting maintenance 
claims legally transferred to it by way of recovery. In response to the applicant’s 
appeal, the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) set aside the contested 
decision and remitted the case to the Amtsgericht for a fresh hearing. In the 
opinion of the Oberlandesgericht, the German courts do have international 
jurisdiction, because the maintenance-entitled assistance recipient’s right of 
option, under Article 3(a) and (b) of the European Maintenance Regulation, to 
claim the maintenance from her son both at the court with jurisdiction for her 
place of domicile in Germany and at the court with jurisdiction for the defendant’s 
place of domicile in Austria, could also be exercised by the applicant in its 
capacity as the assignee of the maintenance claim. 
6 That decision is opposed by the appeal, which has been authorised, lodged by the 
defendant, who is seeking restoration of the Amtsgericht’s decision. 
7 II. The claim asserted 
8 Under Paragraph 1601 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code; 
BGB), direct relatives are obliged to provide one another with maintenance. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 1610 of the BGB, the quantum of the maintenance to be 
provided is determined according to the position in life of the person in need. 
According to established case-law of the Bundsgerichtshof, the position in life of 
a parent living in a care home is determined by that person’s institutional care. 
[Or. 5] That person’s maintenance requirement within the meaning of 
Paragraph 1610 of the BGB therefore usually corresponds to the costs incurred for 
the institutional care plus a smaller cash amount for financing the needs not 
covered by the services of the care facility …. If a parent in need of care is unable 
fully to meet the costs of inpatient care out of his or her own income and assets, 
that person has a supplementary right to social assistance in the form of help for 
care according to the Seventh Chapter of the Twelfth Book of the Social Code 
(Paragraph 61 et seq. of the SGB XII). With regard to the relevant transfer of 
civil-law maintenance claims against children, the first sentence of 
Paragraph 94(1) of the SGB XII specifies the following: 
‘If the person entitled to benefits has a maintenance claim under civil law for 
the period for which benefits are provided, this shall pass to the social 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 6. 2019 — CASE C-540/19 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
assistance institution up to the amount of the expenses incurred, together 
with the right to information under maintenance law.’ 
9 In respect of the enforcement of the claims, the third sentence of Paragraph 94(5) 
of the SGB XII contains the following provision: 
‘The claims under subparagraphs 1 to 4 shall be determined pursuant to civil 
law.’ 
10 III. The referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
11 The question of whether the applicant can invoke Article 3(b) of the European 
Maintenance Regulation is relevant for the resolution of the case. Because other 
grounds [Or. 6] for international jurisdiction of German courts are apparently 
excluded, the appeal would be well founded if Article 3(b) of the European 
Maintenance Regulation should not apply in favour of the applicant. In the 
opposite case, the defendant’s appeal would have to be dismissed. 
12 1. The European Maintenance Regulation is applicable to the present proceedings. 
13 (a) Existence of a civil matter 
14 (aa) Under Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on 
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and 
commercial matters (Brussels I Regulation), recovery proceedings regarding 
transferred maintenance claims could come within the substantive scope thereof 
only if those proceedings were to be classified as a civil matter (Article 1(1) of the 
Brussels I Regulation). Although a comparable limitation cannot directly be 
inferred from the wording of the individual provisions of the European 
Maintenance Regulation, the restriction of the substantive scope of the European 
Maintenance Regulation to civil matters is apparent from the competence 
standards mentioned in the introductory passages of the Regulation (Articles 61(c) 
and 65(b) of the EC Treaty, now Article 81(1) and 81(2)(c) TFEU), which allow 
the EU legislature to adopt measures in the area of judicial cooperation in civil 
matters. 
15 (bb) So long as the Brussels I Regulation was in force, on the basis of the case-law 
of the Court of Justice of the European Union in recovery cases, the existence of a 
civil matter was always to be assumed if the basis [Or. 7] and the detailed rules 
relating to the assertion of the maintenance recovery were governed by the rules 
of the ordinary law in regard to maintenance obligations. By contrast, there was 
no civil matter if the maintenance recovery was not characterised by equal 
treatment of the parties involved, but was founded on provisions by which the 
legislature conferred on the public body a prerogative of its own (see judgments of 
the Court of Justice of 15 January 2004, Blijdenstein, C-433/01, [EU:C:2004:21], 
paragraph 20, and of 14 November 2002, Baten, C-271/00, [EU:C:2002:656], 
paragraph 37). 
WV 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
16 (cc) It is a matter of dispute in the German-language legal literature whether this 
delimitation formula can also be applied to the European Maintenance Regulation 
… or whether the substantive scope of the Regulation fundamentally covers all 
cases in which a public body seeks reimbursement from the maintenance debtor of 
a benefit which it has provided to the maintenance creditor in his stead, without 
the legal basis of the recourse and the form of the public body’s powers to take 
action being of decisive importance here …. In the circumstances here obtaining, 
this matter of dispute does not require more detailed discussion because, on the 
basis of the earlier case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a 
delimitation also leads to the assessment that the recovery proceedings initiated by 
the applicant against the defendant constitute a civil matter: 
17 The claim is based on the defendant’s civil-law obligation to provide maintenance 
for his mother who is in receipt of social assistance. The [Or. 8] Court of Justice 
of the European Union also fundamentally assumes the existence of a civil matter 
on a civil-law basis if a maintenance claim rooted in civil law is transferred to a 
public body by way of statutory subrogation, as in this case pursuant to the first 
sentence of Paragraph 94(1) of the SGB XII (see with regard to Paragraph 7 of the 
Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz (Maintenance Advance Law; UVG: judgment of the 
Court of Justice of 15 January 2004, Blijdenstein, C-433/01, [EU:C:2004:21], 
paragraphs 20 and 21). The transferred maintenance claim is to be pursued by the 
applicant pursuant to the third sentence of Paragraph 94(5) of the SGB XII via the 
civil-law route. As a public body, the applicant does not have a special prerogative 
with regard to the method of asserting the maintenance claim transferred to it, as 
formed the basis in particular for the situation which the Court of Justice of the 
European Union had to assess in the Baten case (see judgment of the Court of 
Justice of 14 November 2002, Baten, C-271/00, [EU:C:2002:656], paragraphs 35 
and 36). 
18 However, it must be pointed out in this connection that, under German law, there 
may also be situations in which a public body can enforce its recovery claim 
against a maintenance debtor, even though the latter’s performance obligation has 
previously been waived through an agreement with the maintenance creditor. 
Under Paragraph 1614(1) of the BGB, in the case of relative maintenance and 
spousal separation maintenance (see Paragraph 1360a(3) and the fourth sentence 
of Paragraph 1361(4) of the BGB), agreements regarding the waiver of future 
maintenance payments are generally prohibited, with the intention of protecting 
both the maintenance creditor and the public body …. Even though no statutory 
prohibition applies, maintenance agreements which are objectively to the 
detriment of public bodies or even seek to cause harm thereto may in certain 
individual cases [Or. 9], from the angle of the general clause under civil law of 
Paragraph 138 of the BGB, prove to be contrary to public policy and therefore 
void …. On this basis, the protection of public bodies against an agreement 
between the parties in a legal maintenance relationship that is disadvantageous 
thereto is guaranteed under German law in various forms through general civil 
law, but not through special intervention powers on the part of the public bodies. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 6. 2019 — CASE C-540/19 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
19 (b) Recovery demand as maintenance obligation 
20 The substantive scope of the European Maintenance Regulation is restricted to 
maintenance obligations arising from a family relationship, parentage, marriage or 
affinity (Article 1(1) of the European Maintenance Regulation). It can be seen 
from recital 11 that the term ‘maintenance obligation’ is to be interpreted 
autonomously from the Regulation. On the basis of the case-law of the Court of 
Justice of the European Union concerning the Convention of 27 September 1968 
on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 
(European Jurisdiction and Enforcement Convention), a maintenance obligation 
will in any event have to be assumed if the provision in question is designed to 
secure the living requirements of the creditor or if the needs and resources of the 
creditor and debtor are taken into consideration in the determination of its amount 
(see judgments of the Court of Justice of 27 February 1997, van den Boogaard, 
C-220/95, [EU:C:1997:91], paragraph 22, and of 6 March 1980, de Cavel II, 
120/79, [EU:C:1980:70], paragraph 5). On this basis, the assistance recipient’s 
claim against the defendant undoubtedly constitutes a maintenance obligation 
within the meaning of the European Maintenance Regulation, because the claim 
relates to the assistance recipient’s living requirements, characterised by the 
residential and [Or. 10] care costs, and the assistance recipient’s need and the 
defendant’s ability to pay are also taken into consideration in the determination of 
the provision. If a claim which itself meets the requirements for a maintenance 
obligation within the meaning of the European Maintenance Regulation is 
transferred to a third party by way of statutory subrogation, it does not thereby 
lose its character under maintenance law …. 
21 2. In cases in which the European Maintenance Regulation applies to maintenance 
recovery, a public body may undoubtedly pursue its claim for recovery at the 
place of habitual residence of the maintenance debtor pursuant to Article 3(a) of 
the European Maintenance Regulation. It has still not been clarified whether 
Article 3(b) of the European Maintenance Regulation provides a further place of 
jurisdiction at the habitual residence of the original maintenance creditor for the 
maintenance recovery of public bodies. 
22 (a) This is rejected by some of the literature in Germany and Austria. In respect of 
the Brussels I system, the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union 
made it clear in the Blijdenstein decision that a public body which brings an action 
for recovery against a maintenance debtor is not in an inferior position with regard 
to the latter and that there is therefore no justification for denying the maintenance 
debtor protection at his habitual place of jurisdiction. This case-law is to be 
applied to the European Maintenance Regulation, a conclusion which also 
emerges from recital 14 and Article 64(1) of the European Maintenance 
Regulation, since the term ‘creditor’ (Article 2(1).10 of the European Maintenance 
Regulation) is applied to public bodies therein only with regard to recognition, 
declaration of enforceability and enforcement [Or. 11], but not in relation to the 
rules of jurisdiction …. 
WV 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
23 The differing view, also endorsed by the Oberlandesgericht in its contested 
decision, points out in particular that the jurisdiction at the place of the habitual 
residence of the maintenance creditor according to the European Maintenance 
Regulation no longer constitutes an exceptional provision geared towards the 
needs of an economically weaker party, but the fundamental conception of 
Article 3 of the European Maintenance Regulation is based on general 
jurisdictions of equal status. The application of Article 3(b) of the European 
Maintenance Regulation to the maintenance recourse of state bodies promotes 
effective enforcement of the transferred maintenance claim and prevents 
objectively unjustified preferential treatment of a maintenance debtor living 
abroad …. [Or. 12] 
24 (b) The present Chamber inclines to the latter view. 
25 According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 
Article 3(b) of the European Maintenance Regulation has to be interpreted 
autonomously from the Regulation in the light of its aims, wording and the 
scheme of which it forms part (see judgment of the Court of Justice judgment of 
18 December 2014, Sanders and Huber, C-400/13 and C-408/13, 
[EU:C:2014:2461], paragraph 25). Against that background, the present Chamber 
considers as follows: 
26 (aa) It should firstly be pointed out that the Regulation says nothing on the 
question of whether a public body, as applicant in the scope of a maintenance 
recovery, can invoke the place of jurisdiction at the habitual residence of the 
maintenance creditor under Article 3(b) of the European Maintenance Regulation. 
27 According to the legal definition in Article 2(1).10 of the European Maintenance 
Regulation, only a natural person can be regarded as a creditor, but not a public 
body seeking recovery. Under Article 64(1) of the European Maintenance 
Regulation, public bodies are equated with creditors for the purposes of 
recognition, declaration of enforceability and enforcement. As is made clear in 
recital 14, public bodies would not have the prerogative thereby conferred thereon 
to make applications for the establishment of recognition or for the declaration of 
enforceability without the special provision in Article 64(1) of the European 
Maintenance Regulation. It is true that the Regulation for proceedings leading to a 
judgment does not contain a provision corresponding to Article 64(1) of the 
European Maintenance Regulation. However, for the jurisdictional system of the 
Regulation, it firstly only follows that a public body cannot be regarded as a 
‘creditor’ within the meaning of Article 3(b) of the European Maintenance 
Regulation and is therefore also not authorised [Or. 13] to claim the place of 
jurisdiction at its own habitual residence — that is to say, for example, the 
headquarters — for itself. Whether a public body can refer to the place of 
jurisdiction at the habitual residence of the original maintenance creditor is a 
question that is to be distinguished therefrom. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 6. 2019 — CASE C-540/19 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
28 (bb) The present Chamber is well aware that, in so far as the rules of jurisdiction 
of the European Maintenance Regulation replaced the corresponding provisions of 
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of 
Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (European Jurisdiction and 
Enforcement Convention) and the Brussels I Regulation, the earlier case-law of 
the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning jurisdiction in matters 
relating to maintenance obligations also remains germane for the purposes of 
analysing the corresponding provisions of the European Maintenance Regulation 
(see judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 December 2014, Sanders and Huber, 
C-400/13 and C-408/13, [EU:C:2014:2461], paragraph 23). 
29 With regard to Article 5(2) of the European Jurisdiction and Enforcement 
Convention, the Court of Justice of the European Union has recognised that a 
public body cannot refer to the place of jurisdiction at the domicile or habitual 
place of residence of the maintenance creditor for its action for recovery. The 
Court of Justice of the European Union based that decision on the grounds that the 
general principle in the system of the European Jurisdiction and Enforcement 
Convention was that the courts of the defendant’s place of domicile [Or. 14] were 
to have jurisdiction (Article 2 of the European Jurisdiction and Enforcement 
Convention), whereas the special rules of jurisdiction which derogated from this 
general principle — in particular Article 5(2) of the European Jurisdiction and 
Enforcement Convention — could not give rise to a broad interpretation, 
especially since the Convention generally appeared hostile towards the attribution 
of jurisdiction to courts of the applicant’s domicile (see judgments of the Court of 
Justice of 15 January 2004, Blijdenstein, C-433/01, [EU:C:2004:21], 
paragraph 25, and of 27 September 1988, Kalfelis, 189/87, [EU:C:1988:459], 
paragraph 19). The derogation provided for in Article 5(2) of the European 
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Convention was intended to offer the maintenance 
applicant, who is regarded as the weaker party in such proceedings, an alternative 
basis of jurisdiction. That specific objective had to prevail over the objective of 
the rule contained in Article 2 of the European Jurisdiction and Enforcement 
Convention, which for its part was to protect the defendant as the party who, being 
the person sued, was generally in a weaker position (see judgments of the Court of 
Justice of 15 January 2004, Blijdenstein, C-433/01, [EU:C:2004:21], 
paragraph 29, and of 20 March 1997, Farrell, C-295/95, [EU:C:1997:168], 
paragraph 19). However, a public body which brings an action for recovery 
against a maintenance debtor is not in an inferior position in relation to the latter. 
Moreover, the maintenance creditor, whose maintenance has been covered by the 
payments of the public body, is no longer in a precarious financial position. In 
addition, the courts of the place of residence of the defendant are better placed to 
determine the latter’s resources (see judgment of the Court of Justice of 
15 January 2004, Blijdenstein, C-433/01, [EU:C:2004:21], paragraphs 30 and 31). 
30 (cc) On the other hand, the Advocate General, in his Opinion in the Sanders and 
Huber case, has already emphasised that the principles developed in the case-law 
on the European Jurisdiction and Enforcement Convention and the Brussels I 
Regulation cannot be applied mechanically to the interpretation of the rules of 
WV 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
jurisdiction of the European Maintenance Regulation (see Opinion of Advocate 
General Jääskinen of 4 September 2014 in Cases C-400/13 and C-408/13, 
[Or. 15] Sanders and Huber, […], points 37 and 38). In particular, the systematic 
and teleological considerations which led the Court of Justice of the European 
Union at that time to deny the applicability of Article 5(2) of the European 
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Convention to actions for recovery by public bodies 
can no longer be useful, in the opinion of the Chamber, for the interpretation of 
Article 3(b) of the European Maintenance Regulation in this regard. 
31 (1) A rule/exception relationship between the individual places of jurisdiction can 
no longer be inferred from the grounds of jurisdiction cited in Article 3 of the 
European Maintenance Regulation. Unlike in the Brussels I system, the place of 
jurisdiction at the habitual residence of the maintenance creditor is configured not 
as a special place of jurisdiction, but as an alternative general place of jurisdiction. 
32 (2) It is correct that the jurisdiction of the courts at the place of habitual residence 
of the maintenance creditor should still take account, even during the period of 
validity of the European Maintenance Regulation, of the special protection of the 
maintenance creditor as the typically weaker party in the maintenance proceedings 
(judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 December 2014, Sanders and Huber, 
C-400/13 and C-408/13, [EU:C:2014:2461], paragraph 28). However, the 
jurisdictional provision of Article 3(b) of the European Maintenance Regulation is 
not limited to this regulatory purpose. Firstly, the place of jurisdiction at the 
habitual residence of the maintenance creditor is usually capable of producing 
synchronisation between the place of jurisdiction and the applicable substantive 
law. Secondly, due to their proximity to the subject matter, the courts at the place 
of residence of the maintenance creditor are in the best position to establish the 
living requirements and need of the maintenance creditor (see Jenard Report on 
the European Jurisdiction and Enforcement Convention, OJ 1979 C 59 of 5 March 
1979, p. 1, 25; also referred to in the judgments of the Court of Justice of 
18 December 2014, Sanders and Huber, C-400/13 and C-408/13, [Or. 16] 
[EU:C:2014:2461], paragraph 34, and of 20 March 1997, Farrell, C-295/95, 
[EU:C:1997:168], paragraphs 24 and 25). If the legislature had only seen those 
further regulatory objectives as insignificant secondary aims which merely 
reinforce the actual main purpose of protecting a potentially inferior party in 
proceedings, it would consequently only have been able to open up the place of 
jurisdiction at the habitual place of residence of the maintenance creditor for 
actions brought by the maintenance creditor. However, according to the clear 
wording of the standard, this place of jurisdiction exists independently of whether 
the maintenance creditor himself is bringing an action or whether he is being sued 
by the maintenance debtor — for instance by way of a (negative) declaration 
action denying the maintenance obligation. 
33 (dd) The present Chamber finds its preferred legal assessment also supported by a 
comparative view of the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of 
Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance of 23 November 2007 
(HMC 2007). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 6. 2019 — CASE C-540/19 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
34 (1) Article 36(1) of the HMC 2007 specifies that public bodies as applicants 
within the scope of legal assistance are to be considered to be ‘creditors’ only with 
regard to recognition and enforcement (Article 10(1)(a) and (b) of the 
HMC 2007), but not with regard to the establishment of a decision 
(Article 10(1)(c) of the HMC 2007). This means that public bodies are 
fundamentally unable to claim any assistance from the central authorities of 
another Contracting State for proceedings leading to a judgment at the habitual 
place of residence of the maintenance debtor. In the discussions regarding the 
formulation of the Hague Maintenance Convention, this restriction appeared 
justified because public bodies will typically establish decisions in their own 
country, followed by recognition and enforcement in [Or. 17] another Contracting 
State (see Borräs/Degeling Explanatory Report on the Convention on the 
International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, 
paragraph 591, published at www.hcch.net). In the opinion of the present 
Chamber, this demonstrates that, in the deliberations on the Hague Maintenance 
Convention, it was assumed to be self-evident that public bodies are authorised to 
raise a maintenance order on the basis of transferred rights established at the place 
of jurisdiction of the maintenance creditor in need of assistance. The European 
Union was involved in drawing up the Hague Maintenance Convention. It 
therefore appears obvious that the European legislature, which, with Article 64(1) 
of the European Maintenance Regulation, created a provision that is essentially 
identical in terms of content to Article 36(1) of the HMC 2007, might have been 
guided by similar ideas. 
35 (2) Under Article 20(1)(c) of the HMC 2007, a decision made in the State of 
origin is to be recognised and enforced in another Contracting State if the creditor 
was habitually resident in the State of origin at the time when the proceedings 
were instituted. If a Contracting State makes use of a reservation in this regard 
(Article 20(2) of the HMC 2007), that State must, pursuant to Article 20(4) of the 
HMC 2007, take all appropriate measures to establish a decision for the benefit of 
the creditor, if the debtor is habitually resident in the State of reservation. In this 
connection, pursuant to Article 36(1), in conjunction with Article 20(4), of the 
HMC 2007, public bodies are also to be deemed by way of exception to be 
‘creditors’ when establishing the maintenance decision, which means that they 
may also demand support from the authorities of the State of reservation (see 
Borräs/Degeling Explanatory Report on the Convention on the International 
[Or. 18] Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, 
paragraph 590, published at www.hcch.net). It logically follows conversely that 
the States which are Parties to the Hague Maintenance Convention — in so far as 
they have not raised a reservation under Article 20(2) of the HMC — are obliged 
to recognise maintenance decisions from other Contracting States which public 
bodies have obtained at the habitual place of residence of the original maintenance 
creditor. 
36 The Council Decision of 9 June 2011 on the approval, on behalf of the European 
Union, of the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International 
Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (OJ 2011 
WV 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
L 192 of 22 July 2011, p. 39 et seq.) does not contain a reservation declaration 
regarding public bodies under Article 20(2) of the HMC 2007, which means that 
the recognition obligation for the Member States of the European Union also 
extends to such decisions falling under Article 20(c) of the HMC 2007 from other 
Contracting States which are Parties to the Hague Maintenance Convention, 
which were made in proceedings leading to a judgment at the place of habitual 
residence of the maintenance creditor in favour of public bodies. Against that 
background too, it appears incomprehensible to deny public bodies within the 
European Union jurisdiction at the place of habitual residence of the maintenance 
creditor. [Or. 19] 
37 3. Overall, the correct interpretation of Article 3(b) of the European Maintenance 
Regulation cannot, however, be derived with unambiguous clarity from the case-
law to date of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Rather, reasonable 
doubts remain in the interpretation of the provision. 
…