Facts
[X.] and [Y.] , both Portuguese nationals, were married in Portugal on 12 April 1976. By judgment of 13 February 2008, the Tribunal Judicial de Montalegre, Portugal, dissolved the marriage of the parties. On 20 June 2011, [Y.] approached the District Court of Arlesheim and requested a supplementation of the divorce judgment, seeking to have [X.] ordered to pay her an appropriate maintenance contribution and to divide the vested pension benefits he acquired during the marriage. The District Court dismissed the claim. On appeal by [Y.] , the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft overturned the decision of the District Court and ordered [X.] to pay [Y.] a monthly maintenance contribution of CHF 300.-- from 1 July 2011 to June 2020 and to pay her half of his "matrimonially acquired" vested pension benefits, amounting to CHF 51,356.60, plus interest. [X.] (the appellant) appeals to the Federal Supreme Court by way of a civil law appeal, seeking the annulment of the contested decision and the complete dismissal of the claim.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first notes that the Portuguese divorce judgment did not address post-marital maintenance or the division of pension assets. Thus, there is a supplementable gap. For post-marital maintenance, the law applicable to the divorce, i.e. Portuguese law, is decisive pursuant to Art. 64 para. 2 PILA and Art. 8 para. 1 new LugC. The Cantonal Court applied Portuguese law and assessed the maintenance based on the principles of Swiss law, which is not objectionable. For the division of pension assets, the law applicable to the divorce, i.e. Portuguese law,…