Jens M. Scherpe

The financial consequences of divorce in a European perspective

2.1. COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY JURISDICTIONS...................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1. Universal Community of Property ................................................................................................ 4 2.1.2. Community of Acquests ................................................................................................................ 5 2.2. SEPARATION OF PROPERTY/PARTICIPATION SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 8 2.2.1. Deferred Community of Property ................................................................................................. 9 2.2.2. Statutory Compensation Jurisdictions ........................................................................................ 10 2.2.2.1. Community of Accrued Gains (Zugewinngemeinschaft) .............................................................................. 11 2.2.2.2. Participation in Acquests .............................................................................................................................. 12 2.2.3. The Hybrid System of Austria – Rule-based discretion ............................................................... 14 2.3. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT A MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY REGIME ......................................................................... 16 2.3.1. England and Wales ..................................................................................................................... 18 2.3.2. Ireland ........................................................................................................................................ 22 2.4. FRANCO-GERMAN AGREEMENT ON AN OPTIONAL MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY REGIME OF A COMMUNITY OF ACCRUED GAINS 25 2.5. PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN FAMILY LAW REGARDING PROPERTY RELATIONS BETWEEN SPOUSES .............................. 29 2.5.1. General Rights and Duties .................................................................................................................. 30 2.5.2. The Participation in Acquisitions Regime ........................................................................................... 30 2.5.3. The Community of Acquisitions Regime ............................................................................................. 32 2.6. COMPARISON – A QUEST FOR FAIRNESS? ...................................................................................................... 35 2.6.1 Comparing the incomparable? ....................................................................................................... 35 2.6.2 Different paths to fairness .............................................................................................................. 36 2.6.2.1 Different views on equality and fairness ................................................................................................ 36 2.6.2.2 Discretion as a means to an end ............................................................................................................ 38 2.6.2.3 Holistic view or separate remedies ........................................................................................................ 38 2.6.3 Similar perceptions of fairness ........................................................................................................ 39 2.6.3.1 Sharing ................................................................................................................................................... 40 2.6.3.2 Need ....................................................................................................................................................... 41 2.6.3.3 Compensation ........................................................................................................................................ 42

Contractualisation of Family Law in England & Wales: Autonomy vs Judicial Discretion

While agreements between family members will not necessarily amount to a formally valid contract in English Law, there is considerable scope for ‘contractualisation’ or ‘private ordering’ in a broad sense in the English family justice system. Moreover, the Government is seeking to encourage people to make agreements governing finances and the care of children on relationship breakdown, as an alternative to potentially costly court proceedings. That said, in both adult and child law the possible extent of contractualisation is limited by the general principle that private agreements cannot exclude the jurisdiction of courts. The court therefore retains the ultimate ability to protect the vulnerable in a paternalistic fashion, for example with reference to its statutory powers to do what is ‘fair’ between former spouses and civil partners and its obligation to treat a child’s welfare as its ‘paramount’ consideration in matters concerning upbringing. Ironically, this leads to a situation where parties to an agreement cannot usually be sure of the true effect of that agreement until it is considered in the course of proceedings that it was often designed to avoid.

Los acuerdos matrimoniales en Inglaterra y Gales tras Radmacher v. Granatino (Marital Agreements in England and Wales after Radmacher V. Granatino: Fairness, Freedom and ‘Foreign Elements’)

La largamente esperada sentencia del Tribunal Supremo del Reino Unido, Radmacher v. Granatino ([2010] UKSC 42, [2011] 1 FLR 1851), ha sido vista por algunos como un golpe contra el status matrimonial y su importancia. Por el contrario, este articulo considera que la sentencia alcanza un equilibrio razonable entre el paternalismo y la autonomia de las partes y que, aplicada correctamente, no amenaza la proteccion del conyuge mas debil y de los menores. Ademas, la sentencia es perfectamente coherente con los desarrollos experimentados en Europa (y de hecho, en las jurisdicciones de todo el mundo occidental). La incertidumbre, criticada por otros, es de hecho necesaria, inevitable e incluso deseable en un sistema de ancillary relief que normalmente otorga discrecionalidad a la autoridad judicial para decidir sobre los aspectos financieros del divorcio.

Die Rechtsstellung gleichgeschlechtlicher Lebensgemeinschaften

Das Hamburger Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht hat im Auftrag des Bundesjustizministeriums ein rechtsvergleichendes Gutachten über die Rechtsstellung gleichgeschlechtlicher Lebensgemeinschaften erstellt. Hierfür wurden in Form von Länderberichten die rechtlichen Regelungen in neun dafür ausgewählten Ländern untersucht. Ergänzt werden diese Länderberichte durch Gutachten aus theologischer, sexualwissenschaftlicher und sozialwissenschaftlicher Sicht, die für die folgenden Ausführungen aber außer Betracht bleiben sollen.