Bundesgerichtshof; 2021-05-19; XII ZB 190/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2021:190521BXIIZB190.18.0
Date: 2021-05-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82021DE0519(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerned a dispute regarding a pension rights adjustment with foreign elements.
The parties to the dispute were a husband domiciled in Germany (hereinafter the ‘plaintiff’) and his wife who came from the Czech Republic (hereinafter the ‘defendant’). The spouses (hereinafter the ‘participants’) lived after the marriage in Germany until 2003 and then in the United States of America. During their marriage, only the plaintiff gained domestic pension rights.
The marriage of the participants was divorced by the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). Regarding the pension rights adjustment, the court ordered that no settlement of pension rights was to be conducted upon the divorce and that the pension rights adjustment under the law of obligations remained reserved. The defendant filed an appeal against this decision, stating that the pension rights adjustment should be conducted under the principles of the statutory law upon the divorce. The plaintiff applied for the appeal to be dismissed. The Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) carried out an internal division of the claims arising from a company and private pension insurance with the value of compensation proposed by the insurance companies. The plaintiff pursued his claim further by lodging an appeal requesting the complete exclusion of any pension rights adjustment.
The international jurisdiction of German courts for the divorce proceedings followed from Article 3(1)(a) of the new Brussels II Regulation (1) due to the fact that the plaintiff had his habitual residency in Germany more than twelve months prior to his filing the application. Under Article 98(3) of the FamFG (2), in such cases, the jurisdiction of German courts also extends to related matters such as pension rights adjustment.
The Supreme Court further stated that under the principle of appropriateness under Article 17(3)(2) of the EGBGB 2009 (3), it was necessary to take into consideration the financial situations of the spouses as well as the international aspects of the marriage. Contrary to the opinion of the plaintiff expressed in the appeal, any possible foreign pension rights which the defendant gained outside of the marriage in the Czech Republic were not relevant for the purposes of the pension rights adjustment of the participants.
In regard to the above facts, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.
(2) Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit (Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Non-contentious Jurisdiction).
(3) Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Introductory Act to the Civil Code).