Sinds de invoering van het Burgerlijk Wetboek in 1838 heeft men herhaaldelijk getracht de gronden voor echtscheiding te verruimen. Hoewel deze gronden uiteindelijk pas verruimd werden in 1971, werd de tot die tijd bestaande situatie, waarbij echtscheiding slechts op vier gronden mogelijk was en echtscheiding met wederzijds goedvinden verboden was, als onwenselijk beschouwd. Dit gevoelen werd nog sterker na het arrest van de Hoge Raad uit 1883, de zogenaamde 'Groote Leugen'. Teneinde een einde te maken aan deze 'Groote Leugen' en in een poging het Nederlandse echtscheidingsrecht meer in lijn te brengen met het Duitse recht, heeft de Nederlandse secretaris-generaal voor Justitie, J.J. Schrieke, tussen 1942 en 1944 twee wijzigingsvoorstellen voorgelegd aan de Duitse autoriteiten welke destijds Nederland bezet hielden. Dit artikel analyseert beide wijzigingsvoorstellen en probeert een antwoord te geven op de vraag in hoeverre deze voorstellen het resultaat waren van een mogelijke invloed van het Nationaal Socialisme.
---
Since the introduction of the Civil Code in 1838 one has repeatedly tried to extend the grounds for divorce. Although the grounds for divorce were not extended before 1971, the then existing situation, with only four grounds for divorce and a prohibition of divorce with mutual consent, was considered undesirable This sentiment became even stronger after the judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court of 1883, which became known as the 'Big Lie'. In order to stop this 'Big Lie' and in an attempt to bring Dutch divorce law more in line with German divorce law, the Dutch secretary-general of Justice, J.J. Schrieke, has presented the German authorities, which then occupied the Netherlands, with two draft revisions between 1942 and 1944. This article analyses both drafts and tries to answer the question to what extent these drafts were the result of a possible influence of National Socialism. This article is a summary of a part of the most important conclusions of the dissertation of the author, titled: 'National Socialist Family Law. The influence of National Socialism on marriage and divorce law in Germany and the Netherlands' defended at Maastricht University on 8 November 2012. A commercial edition of the dissertation is forthcoming.

D'après le Code civil, et ce dè s son origine, la séparation du couple marié peut donner lieu à une obligation légale de payer au conjoint, ou à l'ancien conjoint, une pension censée couvrir ses besoins. En dehors du mariage, point de lien alimentaire prévu par la loi. Depuis 1804, deux évolutions sociales majeures ont cependant changé le visage de la vie de couple. D'un côté, elle ne passe plus nécessairement par le mariage. D'un autre côté, seule sa dimension affective est censée lui donner sens, ce qui la rend éminemment fragile. La question se pose dè s lors de savoir si le lien alimentaire qui existe actuellement en droit belge entre conjoints désunis répond encore de maniè re adéquate et pertinente aux modes de fonctionnement de l'économie conjugale.
---
According to the Civil code, and in view of its development, the separation of a married couple can give rise to a legal obligation to pay maintenance to the other spouse, or ex-spouse, in order to cover his or her needs. In contrast, outside marriage, no statutory maintenance is available. However, since 1804, two major social evolutions have changed the way of life of couples. On the one hand, maintenance no longer flows inevitably from marriage. On the other hand, only the ‘love’ dimension of a relationship supports the provision of maintenance, which makes this claim eminently fragile.
The question then arises as to whether the maintenance between separated spouses which is presently provided for under Belgian law still adequately and appropriately serves the functioning of the conjugal economy.
In addition, the absence of maintenance rights for unmarried couples also raises questions. The contribution proposes a reconsideration of the right to maintenance between all couples, married or not, on the basis of other justifications, in particular the solidarity which couples establish during their shared lives.

This article seeks to critically analyse the European Commission's Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes (COM (2011) 126). It focuses upon the coordination of the Proposal's provisions on jurisdiction and applicable law with the parallel provisions contained in other related EU private international law instruments, namely those relating to divorce (Brussels II bis and Rome III) and succession (Succession Regulation). In doing so, the article adopts a 'stress-test' approach, presenting scenarios in which interaction between these related instruments takes place. The compositions and circumstances of the fictitious couples in these scenarios are varied in order to fully illustrate the potential consequences of the interplay between the instruments. This article seeks to assess the extent to which (in)consistency exists between the current and proposed EU private international instruments and, by evaluating this interaction through a number of norms, how identified inconsistencies impact upon international couples' legal relationships. In order to ensure the analysis remains as up to date as possible, the article will also take into account relevant changes introduced in the latest revised versions of the Proposal.