Lawyer, Family Office
A couple without a marriage contract still has a property regime — it was simply chosen for them by conflict-of-laws rules rather than by the spouses. For a family that spends its whole life in one country this is tolerable: the rules are familiar and predictable. For an international couple it is not: a relocation, a second passport or a house bought abroad can silently switch the applicable law. A marriage contract returns control — provided it is drafted with an eye on every country where the family lives, holds assets or could plausibly litigate.
Why an International Couple Needs One
The main trap sits in the default rules. In the EU the matrimonial property regime is governed by Regulation 2016/1103: absent a choice of law, the regime of the first common habitual residence after the wedding applies. A couple that started married life in Russia and divorces in Germany ten years later may discover that a German court divides their assets under Russian community-property rules — a surprise for both sides. Outside the EU the logic differs but is no softer: English and US courts apply their own law (lex fori), and a Russian court applies the Family Code wherever the marriage was concluded. The more mobile the family, the less sense it makes to rely on a default regime — at any moment it can turn out to be someone else's.
Three Worlds: Notarial Contract, Prenup, Russian Family Code
Continental Europe treats marriage contracts calmly and respectfully. The German Ehevertrag, the French contrat de mariage, the Spanish capitulaciones matrimoniales and the Swiss marital agreement are notarial documents that courts enforce almost without reservation; entrepreneurs routinely use them to elect separation of property (séparation de biens). The one visible filter is the German Inhaltskontrolle: a court reviews the contract for fairness and will not let the economically stronger side contract everything away.
England is a different world. Formally a prenup does not bind the court: the last word always belongs to the judge under s. 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. But since Radmacher v Granatino (2010) a prenup is effectively upheld when it was signed freely, well in advance, with full disclosure of assets, and does not leave a spouse or children in need. In the US a prenup is a standard instrument under the UPAA/UPMAA: it works where there is voluntariness, disclosure and no unconscionability, with the details varying by state.
Russia sits in between. A marriage contract under Arts. 40–44 of the Family Code is notarial and can reshape the property regime freely, but it covers property matters only. A court may strike down terms that put a spouse in an "extremely unfavourable position" (Art. 44) — and Russian courts apply that proviso noticeably more often than German courts apply their Inhaltskontrolle, so heavily one-sided Russian contracts live in the risk zone.
What You Can Write In — and What Will Not Work
The subject matter is property: the regime (community, separation, shares — for everything or for specific assets), the fate of particular objects, business stakes, compensation mechanics. Many jurisdictions also allow spousal maintenance to be regulated — but this is exactly where the borders run: an English court will not allow a contract to leave a party in need, German practice protects the spouse raising children, and a Russian contract cannot regulate personal non-property matters at all. Questions about children — custody, residence, contact — cannot be locked in by contract anywhere: courts decide them by the child's interests at the moment of the dispute, not by a text signed before the child was born.
Choice of Law: Regulation 2016/1103 and Rome III
The strong move for a mobile couple is to choose the applicable law explicitly. EU Regulation 2016/1103 lets spouses subject their property regime in advance to the law of the citizenship or habitual residence of either of them — and that choice survives relocations. The separate Rome III Regulation (1259/2010) additionally allows, in participating states (Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and others), a choice of the law applicable to the divorce itself. A properly assembled package for a "Russia + EU" couple usually carries both layers: a choice of law for the property regime and an agreed divorce scenario — where to file and under which rules to divide.
Recognition Abroad and Mirror Agreements
A contract that is perfect in one country can turn out to be paper in another. An English court will weigh a German notarial Ehevertrag merely as a "factor" in the Radmacher sense; a Russian contract in France will meet questions of form and public policy; an English prenup in Moscow — the Art. 44 caveat. The practice for families with assets in several countries is mirror agreements: coordinated texts, each enforceable under the rules of its own jurisdiction, plus legal opinions from local counsel confirming validity. It costs more than a single document — and incomparably less than a cross-border dispute about whether the contract works at all.
When to Sign: Prenup vs Postnup
A contract can be signed both before and during the marriage — and this is not a technicality. In Russia and most of continental Europe a postnup is fully legal and works exactly like a prenup. In England a postnup is historically even stronger: it is free of the reproach of being "signed under pressure on the eve of the wedding". In the US some states treat postnups more strictly than prenups. The universal timing rules: do not sign a week before the wedding, give each side independent counsel and time to reflect, and fix full asset disclosure as an annex to the contract — these three points close 90% of future challenge grounds.
Practice
The working product for an international couple is not a "notary template" but a small project: an asset-and-jurisdiction map, a 2016/1103 choice of law, a principal contract in the anchor jurisdiction, mirror texts where the key assets sit, and a disclosure protocol. It should be revisited at every big turn — relocation, sale of a business, birth of children: a contract signed in one life must keep working in the next one.
This material is an expert overview, not individual legal advice.