WHERE HER RIGHT IS IN COMPETITION WITH THAT OF THE WIDOW . THIS IS CONFIRMED BY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THIS PROVISION WHICH STATES THAT IF ANY OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO PENSION DIES, HER SHARE SHALL ACCRUE TO THE SHARE OF THE OTHER PERSON . MOREOVER, THE DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE PROVISION IN DISPUTE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED LITERALLY IN SO FAR AS IT REQUIRES THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE PENSION MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE DECREE OF DIVORCE ITSELF, BUT MAINTAINS THAT, AT ALL EVENTS, THE PRODUCTION OF A JUDICIAL DECISION IS NECESSARY .
6 THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF THE OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE OFFICIAL TO PAY MAINTENANCE TO HIS DIVORCED WIFE MUST IN PRINCIPLE BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW WHICH GOVERNS THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIVORCE . IN MANY STATES, AND IN CERTAIN MEMBER STATES IN PARTICULAR, THE MAINTENANCE PAYABLE BY A SPOUSE AS A RESULT OF DIVORCE NEED NOT, AND EVEN IN CERTAIN CASES CANNOT, BE FIXED BY THE DECREE OF DIVORCE OR BY A SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL DECISION, BUT MAY, INTER ALIA, BE ESTABLISHED BY AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES . TO REQUIRE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF THE OBLIGATION TO PAY MAINTENANCE BY A JUDICIAL DECISION, WHEN THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DIVORCE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE OR, AT ALL EVENTS, DOES NOT REQUIRE RECOURSE TO SUCH A DECISION, WOULD IN CERTAIN CASES FRUSTRATE THE EXERCISE OF A RIGHT TO A SURVIVOR' S PENSION WHICH THE STAFF REGULATIONS CONFERS ON THE DIVORCED WIFE WHOSE HUSBAND IS FOUND SOLELY TO BLAME FOR THE DIVORCE . THIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE AUTHORS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . THEREFORE, THE FINAL SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 28 CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS EXCLUDING OTHER MEANS OF PROVING THE OBLIGATION TO PAY MAINTENANCE WHICH ARE REQUIRED OR ACCEPTED BY THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIVORCE . THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 28 IS THEREFORE TO ESTABLISH A RELIABLE POINT OF REFERENCE BASED ON THE INTERNAL LAW APPLICABLE TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED .
7 THEREFORE, BY REFUSING TO AWARD THE APPLICANT THE SHARE IN THE PENSION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 28 OF ANNEX VIII, WITHOUT HAVING CONSIDERED WHETHER THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DIVORCE REQUIRES A JUDICIAL DECISION AS PROOF OF THE RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE, THE DEFENDANT HAS INFRINGED THAT ARTICLE .
8 THE DECISION MUST THEREFORE BE ANNULLED .
9 IN THE SECOND PLACE THE APPLICATION ASKS THE COURT TO RULE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO A SHARE IN THE SURVIVOR' S PENSION AND TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THAT SHARE . THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS TO ADJUDICATE UPON THIS CLAIM .
10 IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPLICANT' S HUSBAND WAS FOUND SOLELY TO BLAME FOR THE DIVORCE AND THAT SHE HAS NOT REMARRIED . MOREOVER, IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION THAT MR WILLY MEINHARDT PAID THE APPLICANT DM 200 EVERY MONTH WITHOUT