or
in personam pension rights adjustment

I wish to emphasize that I can't take credit for both translations, the first one was provided by Beate Lutzebaeck and the second one by Lydia Molea-Lanier and their excellent explanations can be found here:
http://www.proz.com/?sp=h&id=205808


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-07-24 04:40:36 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

@ Fred: Conroy confirmed that this refers to the Versorgungsausgleich and in this case it\'s a schuldrechtlicher Ausgleich. Cf. Lydia\'s and Beate\'s excellent explanations:

Lydia:
My boss is a lawyer and he once attempted to explain this Versorgungsausgleichbusiness to me:
There is a öffentlich-rechtlicher Versorgungsausgleich (pension rights adjustment under public law), which can be waived or not taken into consideration for various reasons (e.g. one spouse is a foreigner and did not pay into the German system, meaning social security, retirement and all that). Once the öffentlich-rechtlicher Versorgunsausgleich does not take place, there is the possibility to \"apply\" for a schuldrechtlicher Versogungsausgleich (in personam pension rights adjustment). Example: the spouses get divorced when they are 45, situation as stated above. When they retire at 65, one can go to court and request a pension rights adjustment. The court then decides whether support will be paid by the divorced spouse who has more money.
Your \"vorbehalten\" refers to the court decision made when the schuldrechtlicher Versorgungsausgleich is decided on. At the time the present decision is made, the Anwartschaft is not an issue yet, but it may be once a schuldrechtlicher Versorgungsausgleich is decided on (if ever).

Beate:

As Lydia explained, there are two types of Versorgungsausgleich (pension rights adjustment) under German law. The öffentlich-rechtlicher Versorgungsausgleich takes place if one party has never made any pension contributions to the public super annuation fund (as is the case for a \"Nurhausfrau\"). It has the effect that the other party\'s pension entitlement is split and transferred to the party who did not make contributions to the public super annuation fund. I assume it is called öffentlich-rechtlicher Versorgungsausgleich because it is deals with the pension entitlements accumulated in the public super annuation fund.

In contrast, the schuldrechtlicher Versorgungsausgleich deals with pension entitlements that have accrued within a private company pension fund, provided that these entitlements have not yet been vested. These adjustment entitlements are calculated as follows:
Example:

Husband\'s company pension is EUR 2000

Wife\'s company pension is EUR 1500

Balance (Wertunterschied): EUR 500 - this balance is divided by 2 = EUR 250 = Ausgleichsrente (equalisation annuity) to be paid by the husband to the wife under the schuldrechtlicher Versorgungsausgleich

Now, I don\'t know why this is called schuldrechtlicher Versorgungsausgleich , but I don\'t think that \"in personam\", the ususal translation as per all legal dicos, gets the underlying concept across.

The difference between the two Ausgleiche is the method of calculation, either by splitting the entitlements (Renten-Splitting), whereby payments are made directly from the public super annuation fund, or by payment of an equalisation annuity (Ausgleichsrente) by the party having higher entitlements in a company pension scheme - the latter is similar to regular alimony (maintenance) payments.

I would probably go for a translation along the lines of: \"pension rights adjustment in the form of an equalisation annuity\".

Re: vorbehalten - the expectancies (or entitlements) had not yet been vested at the time of awarding the judgment and are therefore subject to the pension rights adjustment in the form of an equalisation annuity.

I used to do these things in practice, and they drove me nuts ...

Btw: in the course of explaning, I figured out why it is öffentlich-rechtlicher and schuldrechtlicher Versorgungsausgleich - in one case, after settlement, the recipient has a claim against the public super annuation fund and in the other case, against the former spouse (this is where Lydia\'s \"in personam\" comes in). You could probably get away with using \"in personam\", if you ever had to translate texts that make reference to both methods.

References:

Creifelds, Rechtswörterbuch