The Application of § 1032(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Germany)

Synková, Sandra

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_7

Sandra Synková²

916 Accesses

Abstract

Before proceeding to the analysis of the provisions of the German Code of Civil Procedure (“ZPO”), it is necessary to make a few introductory remarks. Although the following chapter generally aims to follow the structure of the previous chapter, dedicated to the English legal order, some deviations were nonetheless necessary. These deviations are attributed primarily to the following reasons: firstly, the Tenth Book of the ZPO, governing arbitration proceedings, incorporated the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Accordingly, references to the Model Law will be useful while interpreting the ZPO. Secondly, as was discussed in Chap. 1, significant differences exist in the typology and hierarchy of legal sources between countries of the common law and of the civil law legal tradition. Hence, while in the analysis contained in the previous chapter references to case law prevailed over references to scholarly writings, the present chapter reverses this balance. Thirdly, German courts do not possess inherent powers comparable to the ones on occasions exercised by English courts. As a corollary, § 1032(1) ZPO, which is the functional alternative of section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, is exhaustive of the courts’ powers to reject an action as inadmissible on the grounds of an agreement to arbitrate. Finally, while, as discussed in the previous chapter, the proper application of section 9 gave rise to considerable debate and generated a rather large amount of case law, in Germany the application of § 1032(1) ZPO has been rather non-contentious. Instead, the debate revolved primarily around the effects of judicial decisions in relation to existence, validity and applicability of arbitration agreements (Sect. 7.7)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See supra at Sect. 1.4.1 et seq.
2.
Or more precisely, subsections 1 and 4 of section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
3.
Böckstiegel et al (2007), 5.
4.
Semler (2001), 579; Böckstiegel (1998), 20. See also Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 13/5274 cl Drucksache 13/52741.
5.
Böckstiegel (1998), 20.
6.
Ibid. 20. See also Binder (2010), 12, para. 1–008, who highlighted that even though the Model Law is only a “model”, the ultimate goal of the Model Law is nevertheless a verbatim adoption of its text, accompanied by recourse to the Model Law’s travaux préparatoires for interpretation.
7.
Böckstiegel et al (2007), 8, para. 12.
8.
§ 1025 (1) ZPO.
9.
See, e.g. Holtzmann et al (1989); Binder (2010); Bachand (2006); Kerr (1985), 1; Working Group on International Contract Practices (New York, 6–17 February 1984), “Model law on international arbitration: territorial scope of application and related issues: note by the secretariat” 227.
10.
See, e.g. the UNCITRAL CLOUT database at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/case_law.html.
11.
Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL secretariat on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, 15.
12.
See also Semler (2001), 579; Raeschke-Kessler (1998), 47.
13.
The interpretation of the provisions of the Tenth Book of the ZPO will be based on the authentic German version of the text. Any translation to English will, unless indicated otherwise, be the unofficial translation by the German Institute of Arbitration (DIS) and the German Federal Ministry of Justice published in “The New German Arbitration Law” 1.
14.
For example with § 1026 ZPO, see also infra.
15.
Böckstiegel et al (2007), 14. See, e.g. § 37 h Securities Trading Act (Gesetz über den Wertpapierhandel – WpHG).
16.
Böckstiegel et al (2007), 17–18.
17.
BGH 1.3.2007, III ZB 7/06, p. 7 para. 18. Translation by the author.
18.
Böckstiegel et al (2007), 20.
19.
Ibid. 18.
20.
Ibid. 20.
21.
§ 1042 (1) ZPO.
22.
The original text provides: “Ein Gericht darf in den in den §§ 1025 bis 1061 geregelten Angelegenheiten nur tätig werden, soweit dieses Buch es vorsieht.”
23.
See the discussion supra at Sect. 6.1, para. 11.
24.
Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts” 32.
25.
Gerhard Wagner, “§ 1026 – Extent of Court Intervention” in Böckstiegel, Kröll et al (eds), “Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice” 81.
26.
See also Berger (1998), 124.
27.
See supra at Sect. 7.2, para. 4.
28.
Arbitration Act 1996, s 1(c) provides that in matters governed by Part I the court “should not intervene except as provided by this Part”. See supra at Sect. 6.1, para 11.
29.
Münch (2008), § 1026, Rn. 4.
30.
See also Article 5 of the Model Law.
31.
See Münch (2008), § 1026, Rn. 5.
32.
E.g. §§ 128 et seq. (hearing for oral argument) and 253 ZPO et seq. (proceedings until a judgment is rendered).
33.
Böckstiegel et al (2007), 21.
34.
Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts” 38.
35.
§ 1040(3) ZPO is express in respect of the fact that an early separate (preliminary) ruling on the arbitrators’ jurisdiction is preferable to a final award on merits. See also Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts 44”. See also further infra.
36.
Ibid. 38.
37.
In contrast, such distinction, if any, is much less pronounced in English law. See, e.g. Briggs (2008), 499, para. 12.52; Takahashi (2008), 70.
38.
Sandrock (2004), 109; Hausmann (1996), 1728, para. 2297; BGH 30.1.1957, BGHZ 23, 198, 201.
39.
Böckstiegel et al (2007), 24.
40.
Ibid.
41.
Translation from Böckstiegel and Kröll, et al (eds), “Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice” 1116. The original text provided: “Wird das Gericht wegen einer Rechtsstreitigkeit angerufen, für die die Parteien einen Schiedsvertrag geschlossen haben, so hat das Gericht die Klage als unzulässig abzuweisen, wenn sich der Beklagte auf den Schiedsvertrag beruft.”
42.
See also Peter Huber, “§ 1032 - Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” in Böckstiegel, Kröll, et al (eds), “Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice” 141.
43.
Heiermann (1994), 130.
44.
See supra at Sect. 3.2.4, para. 3
45.
See, e.g. Heiermann (1994), 130; BGH 30.1.1957, BGHZ 23, 198.
46.
See Ibid. See also the references contained therein under fn. 15.
47.
Heiermann (1994), 130.
48.
See supra at Sect. 4.5.4.1.1 et seq.
49.
See, e.g. Berger (1998), 122.
50.
Article 101(1) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany.
51.
But cf. Heiermann (1994), 132, who posited that the court review in § 1027a proceedings (i.e. the proceedings as to the substance of a dispute) should not be limited to the review of the validity and scope of the Kompetenz–Kompetenz clause, but rather extended to the issue of whether parties agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration.
52.
BGH 13.1.2005, III ZR 265/03.
53.
See, e.g. Böckstiegel (1998), 19; Berger (1998), 122.
54.
See infra at Sect. 7.5, para. 21 et seq.
55.
The original text provides: “Wird vor einem Gericht Klage in einer Angelegenheit erhoben, die Gegenstand einer Schiedsvereinbarung ist, so hat das Gericht die Klage als unzulässig abzuweisen, sofern der Beklagte dies vor Beginn der mündlichen Verhandlung zur Hauptsache rügt, es sei denn, das Gericht stellt fest, dass die Schiedsvereinbarung nichtig, unwirksam oder undurchführbar ist.”
56.
See supra at Sect. 7.2, para 10. See also Gerhard Wagner, “§ 1025 Scope of Application” in Böckstiegel, Kröll, et al (eds), “Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice” 77.
57.
See supra at Sect. 6.2, para. 10
58.
Böckstiegel et al (2007), 49.
59.
See supra at Sect. 7.2, para. 14 et seq
60.
See, e.g. Wagner, “§ 1026 – Extent of Court Intervention” 83, who proposed that an expansion of the court’s competence by an agreement between the parties should be accepted. Cf. Münch (2008), § 1026, Rn. 3.
61.
See, e.g. the discussion on the admissibility of a Kompetenz–Kompetenz clause infra at Sect. 7.5, para 21 et seq.
62.
Report of the United Nation Commission for International Trade Law on the work of its twelfth session, 18–29 June 1979 (A/34/17), para. 81. For the discussion of the interpretation of the New York Convention see supra at Sect. 5.6 et seq.
63.
UNCITRAL secretariat, “Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL secretariat on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration” 15.
64.
See, e.g. Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts” 28: “To achieve the selection of Germany as a seat of international arbitration in a greater amount of cases, the law available to the parties must, both on the outside and as to its contents, correspond to the well-known framework of the UNCITRAL Model Law.” Translation by the author herself.
65.
Ibid. 43; Huber, “§ 1040 - Competence of Arbitral Tribunal to Rule on its Jurisdiction” in Böckstiegel, Kröll et al (eds), “Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice” 249.
66.
Kreindler and Mahlich (1998), 67. In addition § 1037 of the former ZPO expressly provided that the arbitrators may proceed with the arbitration proceedings particularly in the view of a claim that no valid arbitration agreement exists, that the arbitration agreement does not extend to the dispute, or that one of the arbitrators does not possess the capacity to act as an arbitrator.
67.
The original provides: “Das Schiedsgericht kann über die eigene Zuständigkeit und im Zusammenhang hiermit über das Bestehen oder die Gültigkeit der Schiedsvereinbarung entscheiden. Hierbei ist eine Schiedsklausel als eine von den übrigen Vertragsbestimmungen unabhängige Vereinbarung zu behandeln.”
68.
Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts”, 43.
69.
See supra at Sect. 7.3, para 5 et seq.
70.
Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts”, 44.
71.
The Model Law provides an arbitral tribunal with the power to determine its own jurisdiction in a separate decision subject to immediate court review. On the other hand, it allows the arbitral tribunal to proceed with the arbitration regardless of a jurisdictional challenge pending in the courts. See Article 16(3) of the Model Law.
72.
Lachmann (2002), 170, para. 467.
73.
The authentic text provides: “Hält das Schiedsgericht sich für zuständig, so entscheidet es über eine Rüge nach Absatz 2 in der Regel durch Zwischenentscheid. In diesem Fall kann jede Partei innerhalb eines Monats nach schriftlicher Mitteilung des Entscheids eine gerichtliche Entscheidung beantragen. Während ein solcher Antrag anhängig ist, kann das Schiedsgericht das schiedsrichterliche Verfahren fortsetzen und einen Schiedsspruch erlassen.”
74.
Fabian von Schlabrendorff and Anke Sessler, “§ 1055 – Effect of Arbitral Award” in Böckstiegel, Kröll et al (eds), “Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice” 257.
75.
See also Ibid. 402. The English law provides expressly that an arbitrators’ ruling as to their substantive jurisdiction may be challenged in accordance with the provisions of this Part (i.e. section 67 of the Act). See Arbitration Act 1996, s 30(2). See supra at Chap. 6, fn. 72.
76.
Article 16(3) of the Model Law.
77.
Von Schlabrendorff and Sessler, “§ 1055 – Effect of Arbitral Award” 398.
78.
Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts” 44. The problem of negative jurisdictional rulings will be addressed infra at Sect. 7.4, para 21.
79.
Von Schlabrendorff and Sessler, “§ 1055 – Effect of Arbitral Award” 402.
80.
Otto and Elwan (2010), 156.
81.
Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts” 44.
82.
Von Schlabrendorff and Sessler, “§ 1055 – Effect of Arbitral Award” 400.
83.
Ibid. 402.
84.
Otto and Elwan (2010), 151.
85.
Ibid. 156.
86.
See BGH, 6.6.2002 – III ZB 44/01 in (2003) SchiedsVZ 39. Also reported in Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, 6 June 2002 – Bundesgerichtshof, A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters, Kluwer Law International. For commentary see also Kröll (2004), 56–58. For a more detailed discussion see Ibid. 55 et seq.
87.
In contrast, in England the prevailing view in literature is that any decision denying jurisdiction should be rendered in the form of an award and can subsequently be reviewed under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. See Ibid. 59–60. Swiss law even makes the possibility for such a review explicit. See Arbitration Act 1996, s 67(1)(a) and Article 190(2)(b) PILA, respectively.
88.
Stefan Michael Kröll and Peter Kraft, “§ 1059 - Application for Setting Aside” in Böckstiegel, Kröll et al (eds), “Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice” 458.
89.
Ibid. See also Münch (2008), § 1059, Rn. 6.
90.
Lachmann (2002), 401, para. 1191.
91.
OLG Naumburg, 20.5.2005 - 10 Sch 01/05 in SchiedsVZ 2006, 103, excerpt available at http://www.dis-arb.de.
92.
BGH 24.09.1998 - III ZR 133/97 in BB 1998, p. 2335 WM 1998, p. 2444, excerpt available at http://www.dis-arb.de.
93.
Kröll and Kraft, “§ 1059 - Application for Setting Aside” 459.
94.
§ 1031(6) ZPO provides: “Any non-compliance with the form requirements is cured by entering into argument on the substance of the dispute in the arbitral proceedings.”
95.
I.e. the principle that no one may set himself in contradiction to his own previous conduct. See, e.g. Kröll and Kraft, “§ 1059 - Application for Setting Aside” 459. See also Voit (2007), Rn. 11.
96.
In the original “nichtig, unwirksam oder undurchführbar.”
97.
See supra at Sect. 4.5.4.1.3, para. 1
98.
See, e.g. Bachand (2006), 463, who argues in favour of a prima facie review, but compare his view to Holtzmann et al (1989), 303, 315.
99.
Binder (2010), 125, para. 2–089.
100.
Report of the Working Group on International Contract Practices on its fifth session, New York, 22 February–4 March 1983, A/CN.9/233, 15 para. 17.
101.
As was discussed in Chap. 3 such directive cannot be inferred from Article II(3) of the New York Convention either. See supra at Sect. 4.5.2.1, para 11 et seq.
102.
Ibid.
103.
Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 141.
104.
The other options included referral of the dispute to the arbitrators (“Verweisung”) or suspension of the proceedings (“Aussetzung des Verfahrens”). See §§ 281 and 148 ZPO respectively.
105.
Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts” 38.
106.
Ibid.
107.
With respect to preliminary rulings on jurisdiction see Ibid. 44.
108.
Ibid. 38.
109.
See Arbitration Act 1996, s 32.
110.
Voit (2011), Rn. 10.
111.
The opinion was referred to in Lachmann (2002), 167, para. 457.
112.
Voit (2007), Rn. 13.
113.
Ibid., Rn. 14.
114.
Moreover, the suspension of a § 1032(1) ZPO proceedings with the view of allowing the parties to apply for a declaration pursuant to § 1032(2) ZPO is inadmissible See Ibid., Rn. 9.
115.
BayObLG, 7.10.2002 - 4Z SchH 08/02 in SchiedsVZ 2003, 187, NJW-RR 2003, 354. Also reported in Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 7 October 2002, NJW-RR 2003, 354–355; NZG 2003, 132–139; Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, 7 October 2002 – Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters, Kluwer Law International. English excerpt available at http://www.dis-arb.de.
116.
§ 148 ZPO provides that where the decision on a legal dispute depends either wholly or in part on the question of whether a legal relationship does or does not exist, and this relationship forms the subject matter of another legal dispute that is pending, or that is to be determined by an administrative agency, the court may direct that the hearing be suspended until the other legal dispute has been dealt with and terminated, or until the administrative agency has issued its decision.
117.
BayObLG, 7.10.2002 at para. 3 a).
118.
See, e.g. Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 153; Haas (2005) at 193.
119.
See infra at Sect. 7.6.2 et seq.
120.
Voit (2007), Rn. 8; Geimer (2007), Rn. 4; Haas (2005), 196.
121.
Voit (2007), Rn. 8.
122.
See, e.g. Ibid., Rn. 8.
123.
BGH, 13.1.2005 - III ZR 265/03. An English excerpt published in Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, 13 January 2005 – Bundesgerichtshof, A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters, Kluwer Law International.
124.
See also supra at Sect. 7.3, para 10.
125.
BGH, 13.1. 2005 - III ZR 265/03, 7–8 (translation by the author).
126.
On the negative effect of Competence-Competence see generally supra at Sect. 4.5 et seq.
127.
Böckstiegel et al (2007), 22. Similarly also, e.g. Haas (2005), 190 referring to a “full and not only summary review” (“ein umfassendes und nicht nur ein […] summarisches Prüfungsrecht”); Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 7, referring to a “full preventative control” (“volle Präventivkontrolle”).
128.
See, e.g. Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 143.
129.
Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 143.
130.
See infra at Sect. 7.6.2 et seq.
131.
Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 7.
132.
Weigand and Bühler (2002), 708, para. 77; Haas (2005), 190.
133.
Haas (2005), 190; Voit (2007), Rn. 9; Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 21. See also, e.g. LG Köln, 5.7.2001 - 86 O 14/01 in SchiedsVZ 2002, 691.
134.
Unofficial translation by Dr. Carmen von Schöning (Samson Übersetzungen GmbH). Available at: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo.html#p1000. The original text provides: “Abgesonderte Verhandlung über Zulässigkeit der Klage: (1) Das Gericht kann anordnen, dass über die Zulässigkeit der Klage abgesondert verhandelt wird. (2) Ergeht ein Zwischenurteil, so ist es in Betreff der Rechtsmittel als Endurteil anzusehen. Das Gericht kann jedoch auf Antrag anordnen, dass zur Hauptsache zu verhandeln ist.”
135.
Voit (2007), Rn. 1.
136.
See supra at Sect. 6.5.4.7, para 21.
137.
Albon (trading as NA Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd and another (No 3) [2007] EWHC 665 (Ch), 2 All ER (Comm) 513, Lightman J at [20].
138.
Voit (2007), para.1; Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 7.
139.
See, e.g. Heiermann (1994), 129.
140.
Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts” 38.
141.
See, e.g. Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 153; Haas (2005), 193. See also BayObLG, 25.10.2001 - 4Z SchH 6/01 in NJW-RR 2002, 323.
142.
See, e.g. Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 153. See also BayObLG, 25.10.2001 (discussed supra); BayObLG, 09.09.1999 - 4 Z SchH 03/99 in BayObLGZ 1999, Nr. 58; BB, Beilage 8 zu Heft 37/2000 (RPS), p. 16. English excerpt available at http://www.dis-arb.de.
143.
BayObLG, 09.09.1999 (see supra).
144.
Translation by http://www.dis-arb.de.
145.
BayObLG, 25.10.2001 - 4Z SchH 6/01 in NJW-RR 2002, 323. See also BGH 01.08.2002, III ZB 66/01.
146.
BayObLG, 25.10.2001, at p. 6 (translation by the author herself). The original decision provides: “[e]s ist nur zu prüfen, ob eine wirksame Schiedsvereinbarung besteht, sie durchführbar ist und der Gegenstand des Schiedsverfahrens der Schiedsvereinbarung unterfällt.”
147.
See also Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 7.
148.
In the context of § 1032(1) ZPO arbitrability is often regarded as an aspect of the agreement’s validity. See, e.g. Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 145.
149.
OLG Frankfurt am Main, 24.10.2006 – 26 Sch 06/06 in SchiedsVZ 2007, 217; OLG Frankfurt am Main, 24.10.2006 in Richard H. Kreindler, 24 October 2006 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main (Oberlandesgericht or OLG Frankfurt am Main), A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters, Kluwer Law International. English excerpt also available at http://www.dis-arb.de.
150.
Böckstiegel et al (2007), 16–17.
151.
OLG Köln 19.12.2001 - 11U 52/01. English excerpt available at http://www.dis-arb.de.
152.
OLG Naumburg, 24.2.2005 – 10 Sch H 01/04.
153.
LG Heidelberg, 26.10.2007 - 3 O 331/04. English excerpt available at http://www.dis-arb.de.
154.
Böckstiegel et al (2007), 17.
155.
BayObLG 13.5.2003 - 4Z Sch 35/02. English excerpt available at http://www.dis-arb.de.
156.
Ibid. at II,2 (translation by the author).
157.
OLG München, 7.8.2006 - 34 SchH 9/05 in SchiedsVZ 2006, 286. English excerpt available at www.dis-arb.de.
158.
See, e.g. supra at Sect. 6.2, para. 10.
159.
See, e.g. Böckstiegel et al (2007), 16.
160.
See, e.g. Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 143.
161.
Geimer (2007), § 1032, para. 7.
162.
Lachmann (2002), 160, para. 438; Geimer (2007), § 1032, para. 1.
163.
OLG Celle, 25.8.2005 – 24 O 143/04 in SchiedsVZ 2006, 52. English excerpt available at http://www.dis-arb.de.
164.
With respect to summary proceedings see also Böckstiegel et al (2007), 31; Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 16.
165.
Cf. § 592 et seq. ZPO.
166.
The arbitration agreement nonetheless remains valid and effective with regard to other disputes falling within its scope. See, e.g. Geimer (2007), § 1032, para. 5.
167.
Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 143; Lachmann (2002), 160, para. 438, 164, para. 449; Geimer (2007), § 1032, para. 6.
168.
Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 9; Geimer (2007), Rn. 20. See also BGH 20.5. 1968 - VII ZR 80/67, NJW 1968, 1928 (1928 et seq.).
169.
BGH 20.5.1968.
170.
BGH 20.5.1968 at II 2 c) (translation by the author).
171.
OLG Frankfurt am Main, 1.10.1998 - 1 U 163/96, published in YCA XXV (2000), 443–534.
172.
OLG Frankfurt 1.10.1998 (see supra).
173.
Lachmann (2002), 164, para. 449; Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 9. See also BGH, 14.9. 2000 - III ZR 33/00 in BB, Beilage 6 zu Heft 31/2001 (RPS), p. 17; NJW 2000, 3720; BB 2000, 2330; van den Berg (2002), 265–266. See also infra.
174.
Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 9.
175.
See supra at Sect. 5.6.3.6 et seq.
176.
Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 8. See also the discussion in Chap. 6 at supra Sect. 6.5.4.7, para 16.
177.
Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 143.
178.
Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 8.
179.
But cf. e.g. the decision of the OLG Bamberg, 3.2.2010 - 8 U 81/09, in SchiedsVZ 2010, 279, English excerpt at http://www.dis-arb.de, where the court seised with an objection that the respondent had refused to participate in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal held that the arbitration agreement was not void, invalid or unenforceable since the specification of a concrete arbitral tribunal was not required in the arbitration agreement and a substitute arbitrator might be appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Tenth Book of the ZPO.
180.
See, e.g. BGH 14.09.2000 (see supra); KG Berlin, 13.08.2001 – 92 O 116/99, in SchiedsVZ 2003, 239.
181.
BGH, 14.9.2000 (see supra).
182.
KG, 13 August 2001 – 92 O 116/99 (see supra).
183.
See also OLG Frankfurt am Main, 24.10.2006 (supra).
184.
OLG Oldenburg, 20.06.2005- 9 SchH 02/05 in SchiedsVZ 2006, 223. English excerpt available at http://www.dis-arb.de.
185.
Pursuant to that provision the competent arbitral institution would be determined by the president of the Chamber of Commerce of the place of arbitration or of the respondent’s habitual residence or seat.
186.
See supra at Sect. 7.6.1 et seq.
187.
With respect to the issues concerning the constitution of an arbitral tribunal see also, e.g. OLG Bamberg, 3.2.2010 (see supra).
188.
See supra at Sect. 4.5.4.1, para 7.
189.
LG Heidelberg, 27.10.2006 – 1 O 74/06. English excerpt available at http://www.dis-arb.de.
190.
See supra at Sect. 7.6.4 et seq.
191.
Geimer (2007), § 1032, Rn. 12.
192.
Ibid., Rn. 12.
193.
Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 19, 21.
194.
Ibid., Rn. 21.
195.
Lachmann (2002), 162, para. 441.
196.
Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 146; Huber (2003).
197.
Ibid. See also OLG Dresden, 11.12.2000 - 11 SchH 01/00 in BB, Beilage 6 zu Heft 31/2001, s. 20. English excerpt available at http://www.dis-arb.de. In that decision the Higher Regional Court Dresden held that if the tribunal fails to determine the amount in dispute for certain costs decisions, the parties may resort to the state courts for recovering their costs. The court further held that, to that extent, the arbitration agreement was regarded as not capable of being performed.
198.
Voit (2007), Rn. 9. See also the decision of the BGH, 30.4.2009 – III ZB 91/07 in SchiedsVZ 2009, 287. English digest reported in Richard H. Kreindler, 30 April 2009 – German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters, Kluwer Law International.
199.
BGH, 30.4.2009 (see supra).
200.
BGH, 30.4.2009 (see supra), at p. 5 (translation by the author). The original text of the judgment reads: “Hat eine Partei in dem Verfahren vor dem staatlichen Gericht geltend gemacht, nicht das staatliche, sondern das Schiedsgericht sei zuständig, so ist es ihr in der Regel verwehrt, sich spätter im schiedsrichtlichen Verfahren darauf zu berufen, es sei doch das staatliche Gericht zuständig; ein solches gegensätzliches Verhalten einer Partei läuft auf den Versuch hinaus, dem Gegner in jeder der beiden Verfahrensarten den Rechtsschutz abzuschneiden und ihn damit praktisch rechtlos zu stellen.”
201.
Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 146; Voit (2007), Rn. 9; Geimer (2007), Rn. 14, 16; Lachmann (2002), 162, para. 441.
202.
See, e.g. Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 146.
203.
§ 148 ZPO is applicable in cases where the decision on a legal dispute depends wholly or in part on the question of whether a legal relationship does or does not exist and this relationship forms the subject-matter of another dispute that is pending. In such a case, the court may suspend the hearing until the other legal dispute has been dealt with and terminated.
204.
Lachmann (2002), 161, para. 440; Geimer (2007), Rn. 16.
205.
On the negative effect of the Competence–Competence principle see supra at Sect. 4.5 et seq.
206.
See the discussion supra at Sect. 7.7 et seq.
207.
See supra at Sect. 4.5.1 et seq.
208.
See supra at Sect. 1.3.3, para 13.
209.
See, e.g. Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 153.
210.
Voit (2007), Rn. 8; Geimer (2007), Rn. 4; Haas (2005), 196.
211.
See, e.g. BGH, 13.1. 2005 - III ZR 265/03, pp. 7–8.
212.
See, e.g. Voit (2007), Rn. 1; Münch (2008), § 1032, Rn. 7.
213.
§ 1032(2) ZPO.
214.
§ 1040(3) ZPO.
215.
See supra at Sect. 7.4, para. 21.
216.
See, e.g. Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 143.
217.
See, e.g. OLG Oldenburg, 20.06.2005 (see supra).
218.
See also BayObLG, 7.10.2002 at para. 3 a), where the Court held that the parties have the choice in which proceedings they opt to seek the final resolution of the question of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.
219.
Note, however, that the provision applies both with respect to positive and negative jurisdictional rulings.
220.
Cf. §1062 ZPO.
221.
Peter Huber, “§ 1032 – Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court” 145.
222.
See, e.g. the Law on the Organisation of Courts (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz). See also The German Judicial System, study by UNIDROIT, available at http://ulr.unidroit.org/mm/TheGermanJudicialSystem.pdf.
223.
Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts” 38.
224.
See supra at Sect. 6.6, para 12.
225.
Excalibur Ventures, Gloster J at [67].

References

Bachand F (2006) Does Article 8 of the model law call for full or prima facie review of the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction? Arbitration Int 22(3):463
Google Scholar
Berger KP (1998) Germany adopts the UNCITRAL model law. Int Arbitration Law Rev 1(3):124
Google Scholar
Binder P (2010) International commercial arbitration and conciliation in UNCITRAL model law jurisdictions, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Böckstiegel K-H (1998) An introduction to the new German arbitration act based on the UNCITRAL model law. Arbitration Int 14(1):20
Google Scholar
Böckstiegel K-H, Kröll SM, Nacimiento P (2007) Germany as a place for international and domestic arbitrations – general overview. In: Böckstiegel K-H, Kröll SM et al (eds) Arbitration in Germany: the model law in practice. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, p 5
Google Scholar
Briggs A (2008) Agreements on jurisdiction and choice of law. Oxford private international law series, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Geimer R (2007) § 1032 Schiedsvereinbarung und Klage vor Gericht. In: Zöller R (ed) Zivilprozessordnung, 26th edn. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln
Google Scholar
Haas U (2005) Die gerichtliche Kontrolle der schiedsgerichtlichen Entscheidungszuständigkeit. In: Bittner L et al (eds) Festschrift für Walter H- Rechberger zum 60. Geburtstag. Springer, Wien, p 187
Chapter Google Scholar
Hausmann R (1996) 7. Teil: Gerichtsstands- und Schiedsvereinbarungen. In: Reithmann C, Martiny D (eds) Internationales Vertragsrecht, 5th edn. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln, p 1574
Google Scholar
Heiermann W (1994) Die kompetenz-kompetenz der schiedsgerichte und die einrede des schiedsvertrags. In: Plantey A (ed) Festschrift für Ottoarndt Glosser zum 70. Geburtstag. Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft GmbH, Heidelberg, p 130
Google Scholar
Holtzmann HM, Neuhaus JE, The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (1989) A guide to the UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration: legislative history and commentary. Kluwer, Deventer
Google Scholar
Huber P (2003) Das verhältnis von schiedsgericht und staatlichen gerichten bei der entscheidung über die zuständigkeit. SchiedsVZ (2):74
Google Scholar
Kerr M (1985) Arbitration and the courts: the uncitral model law. Int Comp Law Q 34(1):1
Article Google Scholar
Kreindler RH, Mahlich T (1998) A foreign perspective on the new German arbitration act. Arbitration Int 14(1):65
Google Scholar
Kröll SM (2004) Recourse against negative decisions on jurisdiction. Arbitration Int 20(1):55
Google Scholar
Lachmann J-P (2002) Handbuch für die Schiedsgerichtspraxis, 2nd edn. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln
Google Scholar
Münch J (2008) §§ 1025-1061. In: Rauscher T, Wax P, Wenzel J (eds) Münchener Kommentar zur ZPO, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, München
Google Scholar
Otto D, Elwan O (2010) Article V(2). In: Kronke H, Nacimiento P (eds) Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 345
Google Scholar
Raeschke-Kessler H (1998) The new German arbitration act v. old German case law: which case law of the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Supreme Court) is to be applied to the new act? Arbitration Int 14(1):47
Google Scholar
Sandrock O (2004) Schiedsort in Deutschland, Gerichtskosten in den USA: Sind letztere hier erstattunsfähig?' IDR (3):109
Google Scholar
Semler F-J (2001) German arbitration law: the reform and recent case law. J Int Arbitration 18(5):579
Article Google Scholar
Takahashi K (2008) Damages for breach of a choice-of-court agreement. Yearbook Private Int Law 10:70
Google Scholar
van den Berg AJ (ed) (2000) Yearbook commercial arbitration XXV. Kluwer Law International, Deventer
Google Scholar
van den Berg AJ (ed) (2002) Yearbook commercial arbitration XXVII. Kluwer Law International, Deventer
Google Scholar
Voit W (2007) § 1059 Aufhebungsantrag. In: Musielak H-J (ed) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung (Musielak/Voit), 5th edn. Verlag Franz Vahlen, München
Google Scholar
Voit W (2011) § 1032 Schiedsvereinbarung und Klage vor Gericht. In: Musielak H-J (ed) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung (Musielak/Voit), 8th edn. Verlag Franz Vahlen, München
Google Scholar
Weigand F-B, Bühler M (2002) Practitioner's handbook on international arbitration. C.H. Beck, München
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Law, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark
Sandra Synková

Authors

Sandra Synková
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Synková, S. (2013). The Application of § 1032(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Germany). In: Courts' Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-Award Stage. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_7
Published: 26 April 2013
Publisher Name: Springer, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-00133-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-00134-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics