If the parent liable for maintenance lives abroad, the parent with primary care of the child in Germany faces a very practical question: can the maintenance claim be enforced at all if the debtor lives in Spain, the United States, or a state with no treaty relationship whatsoever? Unlike purely domestic German cases, several different regulatory layers come into play here, which differ considerably depending on the destination state. This article sets out the key instruments: the EU Maintenance Regulation, the 2007 Hague Maintenance Convention for third states, the 2007 Hague Maintenance Protocol on the applicable law, and the role of the Federal Office of Justice as Germany’s Central Authority.
Three Regulatory Layers Instead of One Uniform Global System
There is no globally uniform solution for cross-border maintenance cases. Instead, depending on the destination state, three different regulatory layers apply:
- Within the EU: Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, known for short as the EU Maintenance Regulation or EuUntVO, applicable since 18 June 2011 – with a special position for Denmark, which follows it only through its own parallel agreement and not in full.
- Vis-à-vis numerous third states: the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, with its own, less far-reaching network of Central Authorities.
- Vis-à-vis states covered by neither: older multilateral conventions such as the UN Convention of 20 June 1956 on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, or the 1973 Hague Maintenance Convention, isolated arrangements based on formal reciprocity, or – where even that is lacking – solely the national procedural law of the destination state.
Which layer applies largely determines how burdensome a case becomes: within the EU, enforcement today is largely automated, whereas outside it the effort involved varies considerably from country to country.
Within the EU: Jurisdiction and Enforcement Under the EuUntVO
Jurisdiction Under Article 3 EuUntVO
For the international jurisdiction of German and other EU courts in maintenance matters, Article 3 EuUntVO names four alternative connecting factors. The competent court is, accordingly, that of the place
- where the defendant is habitually resident (point (a)),
- where the creditor (the person entitled to maintenance) is habitually resident (point (b)),
- which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction over proceedings concerning the status of a person, where the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings – unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties (point (c)),
- which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction over proceedings concerning parental responsibility, where the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings, subject to the same limitation (point (d)).
In practice, alternative (b) means: a maintenance creditor living in Germany can, in principle, bring proceedings before a German court even where the maintenance debtor is habitually resident in a third state that is neither an EU member nor a contracting state to the 2007 Hague Convention – unlike earlier jurisdictional rules in civil matters, Article 3 EuUntVO does not require the defendant to be domiciled in a member state. Where no jurisdiction exists under Articles 3 to 5 EuUntVO, Articles 6 and 7 EuUntVO additionally provide for subsidiary jurisdiction based on the parties’ common nationality, as well as a narrowly limited forum of necessity.
No More Declaration of Enforceability: Article 17 EuUntVO
The Regulation’s most significant practical advance lies in the abolition of the exequatur procedure for decisions from member states bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol – that is, all EU states except Denmark. Article 17 EuUntVO provides:
“A decision given in a Member State bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol shall be recognised in another Member State without any special procedure being required and without any possibility of opposing its recognition. A decision given in a Member State bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol which is enforceable in that State shall be enforceable in another Member State without the need for a declaration of enforceability.”
A German maintenance order is therefore directly enforceable in, for example, France or Italy, as soon as a certificate from the court of origin under Annex I or II of the Regulation is available. For decisions from Denmark, by contrast, a separate, simplified recognition procedure continues to apply under Chapter IV, Section 2, of the Regulation (Articles 23 et seq. EuUntVO).
Cooperation Between Central Authorities Under Chapter VII
In addition to the judicial rules, the Regulation establishes, in Chapter VII (Articles 49 et seq. EuUntVO), a network of Central Authorities that assist applicants with cross-border enforcement: facilitating legal aid, locating the debtor and establishing their income and assets, and promoting amicable settlements (Article 51). Under Article 56, applications for recognition, a declaration of enforceability, enforcement, the establishment of a new decision, and modification, among others, may be made through the Central Authorities. In Germany, this task is carried out by the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz, BfJ) in Bonn.
For Third States: The 2007 Hague Maintenance Convention
Outside the EU, the Regulation is replaced – to the extent the state concerned has acceded – by the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, in force since 1 January 2013. Under Article 1, its aim is to ensure the effective international recovery of maintenance. Under Article 2, its scope primarily covers maintenance obligations towards persons under 21 years of age, as well as spousal maintenance where it is joined with such an application.
The 2007 Convention likewise relies on a network of Central Authorities (Articles 4 et seq.), whose tasks resemble those under the EU Regulation: transmitting applications, assisting with locating the debtor and their assets, and – practically important – free or reduced-cost legal assistance for child support applications (Articles 14 to 17). Unlike within the EU, however, the declaration-of-enforceability procedure does not disappear entirely vis-à-vis third states: under Article 20, decisions are recognised and declared enforceable where connecting factors such as a party’s habitual residence in the state of origin or a choice-of-court agreement are present. Grounds for refusal are narrowly limited under Article 22, for instance a manifest violation of public policy (ordre public). The procedure runs through the Central Authorities and is thus considerably simpler than a conventional local enforcement action, but it remains a distinct recognition procedure.
In addition to all EU member states (with the EU itself a contracting party as a Regional Economic Integration Organisation since 1 August 2014), there are currently more than 56 further contracting parties – including the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, Ukraine, Turkey, and states that have acceded in recent years such as Canada, Ecuador, Botswana, and Kyrgyzstan. Notably, the United Kingdom ratified the 2007 Convention but – like Denmark – never applied the accompanying 2007 Hague Protocol on the applicable law, even while it was itself an EU member state. Since further states are continually acceding and any fixed list quickly becomes outdated, it is always worth checking the current status table of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH, hcch.net) before assessing an individual case.
Overview: Which Regime Applies?
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Regulatory layer | Example states | Recognition/enforcement | Central Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| EU Maintenance Regulation (Regulation 4/2009) | France, Spain, Austria, Italy (not fully: Denmark) | Automatic, without exequatur (Article 17 EuUntVO) | BfJ and the foreign Central Authority under Chapter VII |
| 2007 Hague Maintenance Convention | US, United Kingdom, Norway, Ukraine, Turkey, and others | Simplified recognition and declaration-of-enforceability procedure (Articles 20 et seq.) | BfJ and the foreign Central Authority under Articles 4 et seq. |
| No EU law, no 2007 Convention | Depends on the individual case, including states that have not acceded to older Hague or UN conventions | A separate procedure under local law is regularly required | None – possibly older instruments (1956 UN Convention, 1973 Hague Convention) or formal reciprocity |
This overview does not replace a case-by-case review: within each category there are differences depending on whether an existing decision is to be enforced or a maintenance order is to be obtained for the first time.
Applicable Law: The 2007 Hague Maintenance Protocol
Regardless of which court has jurisdiction, there is the further question of which substantive law governs the amount and existence of the maintenance claim. For all EU member states except Denmark and the United Kingdom, Article 15 EuUntVO refers, for this purpose, to the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (HUP). Under Article 2, the Protocol applies universally: it applies even where it points to the law of a non-contracting state – a German court therefore applies it regardless of where the creditor or debtor actually lives.
Basic rule (Article 3 HUP): The applicable law is that of the state in which the creditor is habitually resident. If the creditor changes their habitual residence, the law of the new habitual residence applies from the date of the change (Article 3(2) HUP).
Special rules for certain creditors (Article 4 HUP): For maintenance obligations of parents towards their children and of children towards their parents, a cascading set of fallback rules applies in favour of the creditor: if the creditor obtains no maintenance under Article 3, the law of the forum applies; failing that, the law of the creditor’s own habitual residence; and, as a last resort, the common national law of both parties.
Spousal maintenance (Article 5 HUP): Here an escape clause applies: if a party objects to the application of the law of the creditor’s habitual residence, and another state – in particular that of the spouses’ last common habitual residence – has a closer connection with the marriage, the law of that other state governs.
Choice of law (Article 8 HUP): The parties may, at any time, choose one of four laws: the national law of either party, the law of their habitual residence, or the law applicable to their matrimonial property regime or to their divorce. A choice of law is excluded for minors under 18 and vulnerable adults (Article 8(3) HUP) and is subject to a fairness review: if it would have manifestly unfair consequences for a party, it is disregarded, unless both parties were fully informed at the time of the choice (Article 8(5) HUP).
The Protocol does not apply to the United Kingdom or Denmark; there, the applicable law is determined by their own rules of private international law.
Practical Problems With States Covered by No Agreement at All
The real difficulties begin where neither EU law nor the 2007 Hague Convention applies. One point often overlooked at the outset: a German maintenance order can frequently still be obtained, because the jurisdiction of German courts under Article 3(b) EuUntVO already attaches to the creditor’s habitual residence in Germany – regardless of where the debtor lives. The real problem then lies not in obtaining the order, but in enforcing it in the destination state.
Where no treaty basis exists there, the Federal Office of Justice cannot assist as Central Authority, since its competence is tied to the relevant conventions. In a small number of states – for instance, in relation to certain Canadian provinces and South Africa – the German Act on the International Recovery of Maintenance (Auslandsunterhaltsgesetz, AUG) provides for so-called formal reciprocity, which enables simplified cooperation even without a multilateral agreement. Older instruments such as the 1956 UN Convention or the 1973 Hague Maintenance Convention likewise remain relevant vis-à-vis individual states that have not acceded to the 2007 Convention – Switzerland, for example, has not (yet), as matters currently stand, acceded to the 2007 Convention and instead relies predominantly on these older instruments; a public consultation on possible accession has only been running there since 29 October 2025, so the position may change in the medium term.
Where none of these instruments exists, the only option is regularly a separate proceeding under the law of the destination state – usually involving a locally admitted lawyer, with corresponding costs, translation work, and an uncertain outcome. The German order can, at most, serve as an indication, but it does not replace the local proceeding.
An Illustrative Example (Entirely Fictional)
The following example is entirely fictional and serves illustrative purposes only; it does not describe any real case or real person.
A mother lives with the couple’s child in Munich; the father has permanently moved to a country outside the EU that has acceded neither to the 2007 Hague Convention nor to any of the older instruments. The mother can nonetheless obtain a child maintenance order before the competent German family court under Article 3(b) EuUntVO; German law applies, via Article 15 EuUntVO in conjunction with Article 3 HUP, since she is habitually resident in Germany. If the father pays voluntarily, the matter is resolved. If he refuses to pay and has no attachable assets in Germany, the order does not automatically help against his assets abroad – the Federal Office of Justice cannot assist for lack of a treaty basis, and the mother would need to have it assessed whether a separate local action with local legal support would have reasonable prospects of success.
When Is Legal Advice Worthwhile?
Whenever a party’s habitual residence changes. Whether EU law, the 2007 Hague Convention, or no agreement at all applies depends on the state of residence – and changes anew with every move.
Before choosing the applicable law. A choice of law under Article 8 HUP can, for example, make sense in connection with a marriage contract, but it is subject to strict requirements and a fairness review.
Where the destination state is not a contracting state to the 2007 Convention. Before embarking on a costly foreign proceeding, a realistic assessment of the prospects of success and the costs involved is worthwhile.
When enforcing an existing order against a debtor living abroad. Outside the EU, choosing the right type of application can determine success or failure.
Conclusion
The international enforcement of maintenance claims within the EU is, thanks to Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, largely free of bureaucracy: a German order is enforceable in other member states without an exequatur procedure, and the Federal Office of Justice provides free assistance as Central Authority. Vis-à-vis third states, this automatic mechanism is replaced by the 2007 Hague Convention, with a simplified but not enforcement-free procedure. Where no treaty basis exists at all, often only a separate proceeding in the destination state remains – although a German order can usually still be obtained, since the jurisdiction of German courts regularly already attaches to the creditor’s habitual residence in Germany.
Fiala law firm has published extensively on international family law and helps clients assess maintenance claims with a foreign connection, choose the right legal route between EU regulation, Hague conventions, and national law, and coordinate cooperation with the Central Authority and, where necessary, foreign lawyers. In a maintenance case with a foreign connection, contact the firm at an early stage to discuss your individual situation in an initial consultation.
