Source: https://library.iccwbo.org/content/dr/COUNTRY_ANSWERS/CA_SUPP_0029_26.htm?l1=Country+Answers&l2=Germany
Timestamp: 2019-09-23 08:05:25
Document Index: 184319385

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1061', '§ 1062', '§ 8', '§ 1061', '§ 1063', '§ 1063', '§ 1063', '§ 1065', '§ 574', '§ 299', '§ 172', '§ 752']

This Country Answer reflects the state of the law as of 1 January 2012. Please refer to the explanations in the chapter entitled Preliminary Note.
28 September 1961.
(Sources: Gesetz vom 15. März 1961 zum Übereinkommen über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Schiedssprüche vom 10 Juni 1958, BGBl. 1961 II S. 121; notification of entry into force in Federal Gazette: Bekanntmachung vom 23. März 1962, BGBl. 1962 II S. 102.)
Reservation withdrawn on 31 Aug. 1998.
4. In addition to arbitral awards made in the territory of another State, the New York Convention (Article I(1)) also applies to arbitral awards not considered as domestic awards in the State where recognition and enforcement are sought. Are there any awards rendered in your country that are not considered as domestic awards such that the New York Convention and the answers to this Questionnaire are applicable to them?
§§1061-1065, Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO)), published in consolidated form in BGBl. 2005 I S. 3202; the New York Convention itself, as incorporated into German federal law by Gesetz vom 15. März 1963 zum Übereinkommen über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Schiedssprüche vom 10. Juni 1958, BGBl. 1961 II S. 121.
Recognition and enforcement, like civil procedure as a whole, is generally governed by federal law. State law is only relevant in this regard where federal legislation empowers the states (Länder) to legislate. In relation to arbitration, this has occurred only for minor issues, such as the possibility for the states to designate a Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht (OLG)) with exclusive jurisdiction over certain arbitration matters within that state (see ZPO, § 1062(5)). One example is Bavaria (Freistaat Bayern): § 8, Verordnung über gerichtliche Zuständigkeiten im Bereich des Staatsministeriums der Justiz vom 16. November 2004 (GZVJu), GVBl. 2004 S. 471.
An application for a declaration of enforceability (Vollstreckbarerklärung, ZPO, § 1061 II) of the award need be made only once; there is no need for actions in several states. Actual enforcement (execution against assets) is achieved by application to the competent execution authority; competence usually depends on the location of assets.
No. However, if the limitation period for setting aside the award at the seat of the arbitration has expired, it is unclear whether the current Code of Civil Procedure allows a defence to be brought against an application to enforce in Germany.
(Sources: Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof (BGH)), BGH NJW-RR 2008, 1083 (question left undecided); Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Karlsruhe, SchiedsVZ, 2008, 47 (no defence can be raised against an application to enforce once the time limit to set aside has expired).)
In principle, the Oberlandesgericht in the district where the respondent has (i) its seat, (ii) its usual place of business, (iii) an asset, or (iv) where the object of the arbitral award is located; or the Kammergericht (appeal court for the district of Berlin) if none of (i)-(iv) is in Germany. In certain states large enough to have more than one Oberlandesgericht, jurisdiction over all applications is concentrated in one Oberlandesgericht (e.g. the Oberlandesgericht in Munich for Bavaria). In order to improve efficiency and expertise, some states have also concentrated jurisdiction in a 'senate' (standing tribunal of three judges) of the appeal court (in Hessen, the 26th Civil Senate of the Oberlandesgericht in Frankfurt, which is presided over by the President of the Oberlandesgericht; in Bavaria, the 34th Civil Senate of the Oberlandesgericht in Munich).
No jurisdictional requirements other than competence ratione loci (see Q.7 above). Note that if (i)-(iv) of Q.7 above do not apply, the German courts will still accept jurisdiction as the applicant could file in the Kammergericht. However, if the law at the place of arbitration requires formal recognition, registration or a similar procedure, this must be obtained before the German court will entertain the application for recognition or enforcement.
Inter partes proceedings, in which the respondent will be given the opportunity to be heard.
(Source: ZPO, § 1063(1) sentence 2.)
An oral hearing can be dispensed with unless the judge considers there may be grounds for dismissing enforcement proceedings.
(Source: ZPO, § 1063(2)).
However, the presiding judge can grant interim enforcement, without hearing the opposing party, until a decision on the request for enforcement has been reached. The opposing party may prevent this by providing security to cover the amount to be enforced.
(Source: ZPO, § 1063(3).)
Yes, if the matter is of general relevance or if the appeal is necessary to develop the law or ensure consistency in case law.
(Source: see Rechtsbeschwerde pursuant to ZPO, § 1065, read together with § 574 et seq.)
Only one: the Rechtsbeschwerde to the Bundesgerichtshof.
After (i) the Oberlandesgericht has issued a decision granting enforcement of the award;), (ii) a certified copy of this decision has been obtained for purposes of enforcement and (iii) the decision has been notified to the debtor. However, so long as an appeal remains possible (see Q.10 above), any execution will be subject to reimbursement in the event the appeal succeeds.
The original or a duly authenticated copy of the award (counsel for the applicant may authenticate the copy). The contract containing the arbitration clause need not be supplied but can be requested by the court.
Only one original or one duly certified copy.
Although not a condition for the request to be admissible, a translation can be requested by the court; it is normal practice to provide translations into German in any event.
(Sources: Bundesgerichtshof, BGH NJW-RR 2004, 1504; Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, BayObLG, RIW 2001, 140.)
(c) Is it necessary for the translations to be certified and, if yes, by whom (official or sworn translator or diplomatic or consular agent (of which country?) or some other person)?
It may be argued before the court that a partial translation suffices (e.g. operative part of the award), see (a) above.
Yes, but only if the respondent can persuade the court that the setting aside proceedings are likely to be successful. If the application to set aside is successful in the State where the award was rendered, the respondent may ask for enforcement to be reconsidered if it has already been granted.
15. (a) Do the documents filed in legal proceedings for recognition and enforcement form part of the public record? If yes, can any steps be taken to preserve the confidentiality of such documents?
The public generally does not have access to documents in the record. However, third parties can request to review the court record if they have a legal interest. When assessing this legal interest, the court can take into account the parties' legitimate interests in maintaining confidentiality.
(Source: ZPO, § 299.)
In principle, the hearings are public. Access to the hearings may be restricted inter alia (i) where business secrets are involved, (ii) where protection of the particular individual interests is considered to be more important than the general public interest in open hearings or (iii) to preserve public order. These exceptions are handled with great caution as they touch on the constitutional right to public justice.
(Source: Law on judicial organization (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (GVG), § 172.)
Publication by the court is possible, but names will in this case systematically be removed.
Interim and partial awards can in principle be enforced, if deciding in substance. Mere provisional measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal cannot be enforced.
Awards providing for non-monetary relief can be enforced if the matter is capable of settlement by arbitration from a German perspective and unless such relief is incompatible with public policy (e.g. if it would be a criminal offence to perform the action granted as relief in the award).
Partial enforcement is possible in general if the award is severable and the enforceable part can be delimited. The law expressly mentions the possibility of partial enforcement with regard to monetary obligations, for example.
(Source: ZPO, § 752.)
This question is debated in Germany. Most commentators regard an award that was set aside by the competent authorities at its seat as unenforceable. However, a minority argues that it would be unacceptable to bow automatically to a decision to set aside, to the detriment of the winning party, without having an opportunity to review whether the decision to set aside was made in accordance with fundamental procedural guarantees.