KG Berlin; 2018-07-26; 3 UF 16/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:KG:2018:0726.3UF16.18.00
Date: 2018-07-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82018DE0726(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A Dutch citizen domiciled in Germany (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') sought divorce from his wife of German nationality (hereinafter 'the defendant').
The cohabitation no longer exists since the spouses have been separated for over 3 years.
The defendant applied for the pension rights adjustment to be carried out and, in the context of the subsequent post-marital maintenance case, first requested information regarding the plaintiff's income level in the form of an action by stages. The plaintiff requested that the defendant's application be dismissed. It was a very short marriage and he did not owe her any post-marital support.
The Amtsgericht Köpenick (hereinafter 'the Court of First Instance') pronounced the divorce of the marriage, regulated the pension rights adjustment and dismissed the application for post-marital maintenance. The defendant has not proven that he cannot reasonably be expected to work full-time as a result of the amputation of his leg.
Although the conditions for divorce are met and the defendant's appeal against the divorce decree is unsuccessful, the defendant's appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance to the Kammergericht Berlin (hereinafter 'the Court of Appeal') is admissible and well founded.
After the divorce of the marriage, the defendant could be entitled to a claim for maintenance against the husband under sections 1569, 1572, 1573 and 1578 of the German Civil Code. The extent of the maintenance requirements is determined by the marital living conditions of the parties at the time of the divorce.
The plaintiff's reference to an order in a similar case has no prejudicial effect on the present proceedings. The economic circumstances of the divorced parties must always be taken into account. The Court of First Instance did not take into account the health limitations of the defendants.
The Court of Appeal annulled the order of the Court of First Instance and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new hearing and decision.