EUPillar OLG Frankfurt, 12.4.2012

Summary

The parties argued about maintenance claims. The plaintiff is German whereas his mother has the citizenship of Belarus. The defendant is German and has recognised the paternity in relation to the plaintiff. When the proceedings were initiated, the plaintiff lived in Germany with his mother. After that, they moved to Belarus in order to live together with the mother’s husband. The defendant claims that the plaintiff in Belarus is considered as the child of the mother’s husband and the child therefore was not in need for maintenance. The court held that German courts had the international jurisdiction under Art 3 a Maintenance Regulation. It further stated that the defendant was obliged to pay maintenance even in the case that the mother’s husband would be considered as the plaintiff’s father. The issue of paternity was to be considered under the PIL which applied to maintenance issues. This was German law pursuant to Art 4 (3) Hague Maintenance Protocol as the defendant had been sued for maintenance before German courts. The court according to these findings applied German PIL, Art. 19 EGBGB on the question of paternity. It therefore assessed the question of paternity dependently under the choice of law provisions of the law applicable to the main legal question even the Hague Maintenance Protocol had come into force.