Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in Germany

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 23))

Abstract

Despite some difficulties and controversies in its application, the New York Convention is generally regarded as a very valuable and effective international instrument for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Germany. This chapter, in analyzing the large number of existing court precedents, demonstrates how German courts have, in general, consistently interpreted the Convention in light of its goal to promote the effectiveness of international commercial arbitration and have tried to compensate for limitations of the Convention by supplementing it with principles of German law.

This report was prepared for the IXth International Congress of Comparative Law, held in July 2014 at the University of Vienna. As a consequence, it was not possible to take into account judgments or developments more recent than 2013.

Dennis Solomon is Professor of Civil Law, Private International Law and Comparative Law and Director of the Institute for International and Foreign Law of the University of Passau. He is LL.M. graduate from the UC Berkeley School of Law and earned a doctorate (Dr. iur.) at the University of Passau.

The indications of paragraph numbers with regard to German decisions refer to the paragraph numbering system of the German database iuris (http://www.juris.de).

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)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 269.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 349.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    BGBl. 1997 I, 3224.

  2. 2.

    BGBl. 1997 I, 3224, 3241. For a comprehensive handbook on the new German law, see KH Böckstiegel, SMF Kröll and P Nacimiento (eds), Arbitration in Germany. The Model Law in Practice (Austin, Kluwer Law International, 2007).

  3. 3.

    Available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_arbitration.html

  4. 4.

    ZPO § 1061 provides: “Foreign awards. (1) Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards shall be granted in accordance with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 (Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl.] 1961 Part II p. 121). The provisions of other treaties on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards shall remain unaffected. (2) If the declaration of enforceability is to be refused, the court shall rule that the arbitral award is not to be recognized in Germany. (3) If the award is set aside abroad after having been declared enforceable, application for setting aside the declaration of enforceability may be made.” Unofficial translation by the German Institution of Arbitration (DIS) and the German Federal Ministry of Justice; available at http://www.dis-arb.de/de/51/materialien/german-arbitration-law-98-id3

  5. 5.

    ZPO § 1061(I)(1).

  6. 6.

    Original Act: RGBl. 1877 I, 244. The transitional provision was originally enacted in Art. 4 § 1 of the Arbitration Amendment Act, BGBl. 1997 I, 3224, 3240; it was later moved to § 33 of the Introductory Act to the ZPO by an Act of 19 April 2006, BGBl. 2006 I, 866, 874.

  7. 7.

    Introductory Act to the ZPO § 33(I). – For the original version of the ZPO, see BGBl. 1950 I, 533; the last amendment of the ZPO before the enactment of the Arbitration Amendment Act was made by an Act of 28 October 1966, BGBl. 1996 I, 1546.

  8. 8.

    Introductory Act to the ZPO § 33(III).

  9. 9.

    BayObLG (17.09.1998, 4Z Sch 1/98), BayObLGZ 1998, 219 = NJW-RR 1999, 644, paras 9–13; BayObLG (16.03.2000, 4Z Sch 50/99), NJW-RR 2000, 431, para 12; OLG Stuttgart (24.05.2000, 1 Sch 2/00), OLGR 2000, 386, para 3; OLG Hamburg (24.01.2003, 11 Sch 06/01), SchiedsVZ 2003, 285, para 27; – Cf BGH (01.02.2001, III ZR 332/99), NJW-RR 2001, 1059, para 8 (former law applies to applications for enforcement made before 1 January 1998).

  10. 10.

    BGBl. 1962 II, 102.

  11. 11.

    BGBl. 1999 II, 7.

  12. 12.

    BGH (01.02.2001, III ZR 332/99), NJW-RR 2001, 1059, para 11; BGH (25.09.2003, III ZB 68/02), SchiedsVZ 2003, 281, para 8.

  13. 13.

    See, eg, OLG Rostock (28.10.1999, 1 Sch 3/99), BB 2000, Beilage Nr. 8, 20, para 32; OLG Rostock (22.11.2001, 1 Sch 3/00), IPRax 2002, 401, para 37; OLG Düsseldorf (19.01.2005, 26 Sch 5/03), SchiedsVZ 2005, 214, para 15.

  14. 14.

    Cf BGH (08.10.1981, III ZR 42/80), NJW 1982, 1224, paras 17–18, holding that it would be contrary to the aim of the Convention if arbitral awards that are not enforceable under the lex arbitri were enforceable in another Contracting State under the Convention.

  15. 15.

    BGH (08.10.1981, III ZR 42/80), NJW 1982, 1224. Accord: KH Schwab & G Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (7th edn, München, C.H. Beck et al, 2005), Ch. 30 para 21; Voit, in: Musielak, Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, 10th edn (München, Vahlen, 2013), § 1061 para 3. Contra: Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, Zivilprozessordnung, 22nd edn (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2002), Anh. § 1061 para 9; also see D Solomon, Die Verbindlichkeit von Schiedssprüchen in der internationalen privaten Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (München, Sellier European Law Publ, 2007) 102–104.

  16. 16.

    BayObLG (22.11.2002, 4Z Sch 13/02), SchiedsVZ 2003, 142, paras 47–48. Case note: Plaßmeier, SchiedsVZ 2004, 234–237.

  17. 17.

    Cal. CCP § 1287.6.

  18. 18.

    See, eg, AJ van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 (Deventer, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publ, 1981), 337. Cf the argument of BGH (02.07.2009, IX ZR 152/06), SchiedsVZ 2009, 285, against the possibility of a double exequatur.

  19. 19.

    See, in particular, Plaßmeier, SchiedsVZ 2004, 236.

  20. 20.

    For that argument, in general, see Solomon, Verbindlichkeit, 375–377.

  21. 21.

    OLG Thüringen (08.08.2007, 4 Sch 3/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 44, paras 14–15; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 paras 11–13; Adolphsen, in: Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung (4th edn, München, C.H. Beck, 2013), § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. I para 4. Contra: Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 30 para 11.

  22. 22.

    Ibid, OLG Thüringen (08.08.2007, 4 Sch 3/06).

  23. 23.

    BGH (18.01.2007, III ZB 35/06), NJW-RR 2007, 1008, paras 6–7.

  24. 24.

    BayObLG (05.07.2004, 4Z Sch 9/04), SchiedsVZ 2004, 316, para 8. Case note: Wagner, SchiedsVZ 2004, 317–319.

  25. 25.

    Deutsch-Österreichischer Vertrag über die gegenseitige Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von gerichtlichen Entscheidungen, Vergleichen und öffentlichen Urkunden in Zivil- und Handelssachen vom 06.06.1959; BGBl. 1960 II, 1245.

  26. 26.

    ZPO § 1025(I) and (IV).

  27. 27.

    See, eg, BGH (22.02.2001, III ZB 71/99), NJW 2001, 1730, para 9. Also see OLG München (14.11.2011, 34 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 43, para 37: award between two German corporations, made in Zürich on the basis of the DIS Arbitration Rules, falls under the Convention.

  28. 28.

    With regard to the parallel interpretation to Art. 1(2) of the Model Law, see Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, § 1025 para 2; Münch, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1025 para 10; Solomon, Verbindlichkeit, 400–401, 424–426.

  29. 29.

    Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 3.

  30. 30.

    Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 30 para 12, gives the example of an order for the provision of security or injunctive relief.

  31. 31.

    For a discussion about whether provisional measures ordered by arbitral tribunals can be enforced under ZPO § 1061 and the Convention see, eg, Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 13; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 30 para 12; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. I para 4.

  32. 32.

    BGH (25.09.2003, III ZB 68/02), SchiedsVZ 2003, 281, para 9; BGH (21.09.2005, III ZB 18/05), SchiedsVZ 2005, 306, para 16; BGH (23.02.2006, III ZB 50/05), BGHZ 166, 278 = SchiedsVZ 2006, 161, para 19.

  33. 33.

    UNTS Vol. 484 (1963–64), 364.

  34. 34.

    OLG München (27.02.2009, 34 Sch 19/08), IPRspr 2009/273, 703, para 5; OLG München (11.05.2009, 34 Sch 23/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 343, para 7.

  35. 35.

    OLG Dresden (31.01.2007, II Sch 18/05), SchiedsVZ 2007, 327. Case note: Steinbrück, IHR 2008, 152–157.

  36. 36.

    Steinbrück, IHR 2005, 153; also cf Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 168; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 42 para 15. Contra: Wolff, LMK 2008, 265473: EuC applicable “because Germany and Belarus are Contracting States”; it is unclear why this should be relevant under Arts. I and XI of the EuC.

  37. 37.

    The court probably implicitly referred to the Agreement on Trade Relations between The United States of America and The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 1 June 1990 (Proclamation No. 6320, 105 Stat. 2641–2666), which was adapted and implemented as an Agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Belarus by an exchange of letters on 16 February 1993 (Note No. BR-MFA/19/93), but this is not quite clear; see Steinbrück, IHR 2008, 154.

  38. 38.

    Cf, in that respect, Steinbrück, IHR 2008, 153 (“remarkable argument”), 154 (“nebulous reasoning”); Wolff, LMK 2008, 265473 (“labyrinthine paths”).

  39. 39.

    Abkommen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und dem Königreich Belgien über die gegenseitige Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von gerichtlichen Entscheidungen, Schiedssprüchen und öffentlichen Urkunden in Zivil- und Handelssachen (Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Belgium on the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judicial Decisions, Arbitral Awards and Official Deeds in Civil and Commercial Matters) of 30 June 1958, BGBl. 1959 II, 766. See BGH (09.03.1978, III ZR 78/76), NJW 1978, 1744.

  40. 40.

    Art. VIII of the Abkommen über Allgemeine Fragen des Handels und der Seeschifffahrt zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken (Agreement on General Provisions Concerning Trade and Maritime Traffic between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) of 25 April 1958, BGBl. 1959 II, 221; the Treaty continues to apply in relation to Belarus: BGBl. 1994 II, 2533. With regard to the applicability under Art. VII(1) of the Convention, see BGH (23.02.2006, III ZB 50/05), BGHZ 166, 278 = SchiedsVZ 2006, 161, paras 19–20; BayObLG (11.08.2000, 4Z Sch 5/00), BayObLGZ 2000, 233 = RIW 2001, 140, para 17.

  41. 41.

    First pronounced in this form by Gavalda, JDI 1935, 113.

  42. 42.

    See, eg, Gottwald, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 722 para 28; R Geimer, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht (6th ed, Köln, Otto Schmidt, 2009), para 3110.

  43. 43.

    BGH (27.03.1984, IX ZR 24/83), NJW 1984, 2765.

  44. 44.

    BGH (10.05.1984, III ZR 206/82), NJW 1984, 2763.

  45. 45.

    Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 4; Schlosser, IPRax 1985, 141–144; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 paras 149–150.

  46. 46.

    OLG Hamburg (05.11.1991, 6 W 43/91), NJW-RR 1992, 568; OLG Frankfurt (13.07.2005, 20 W 239/04), IHR 2006, 212 (enforcement of an English exequatur on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, O.J. 2001, L 12, 1 et seq.); case note: Borges, IHR 2006, 206–210.

  47. 47.

    Gottwald, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 722 para 29; Münch, ibid., § 1061 para 33; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 6; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 30 para 15; Schütze, RIW 1984, 734–735.

  48. 48.

    BGH (02.07.2009, IX ZR 152/06), SchiedsVZ 2009, 285. Case notes: Schütze, RIW 2009, 817–819; Plaßmeier, SchiedsVZ 2010, 82–85; Geimer, IPRax 2010, 346–347; Borges, LMK 2010, 308128.

  49. 49.

    The decision was consequently welcomed by Plaßmeier, SchiedsVZ 2010, 82–85; Geimer, IPRax 2010, 346–347. For a more skeptical comment see Borges, LMK 2010, 308128.

  50. 50.

    BGH (02.07.2009, IX ZR 152/06), SchiedsVZ 2009, 285, paras 15–33.

  51. 51.

    As Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 150, notes, these concerns may be somewhat overrated, as many of the defenses arising under Article V of the Convention would either be relevant to the decision of confirmation of the award in the country of origin or at least be available against the enforcement of the foreign confirmation under the public policy defense of ZPO § 328(I) no. 4.

  52. 52.

    ZPO § 722(II).

  53. 53.

    BGH (02.07.2009, IX ZR 152/06), SchiedsVZ 2009, 285, paras 28, 30, 32–33.

  54. 54.

    ZPO § 1032(I): “nichtig, unwirksam oder undurchführbar.”

  55. 55.

    As for the discussion by commentators, see, eg, Huber, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1032 paras 15–21; Münch, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1032 paras 7–8; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 3 Wolf/Eslami, in: Beck’scher Online Kommentar ZPO (10th edn, München, C.H. Beck, 2013), § 1032 paras 12–16.

  56. 56.

    Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 paras 77–78; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 43 para 1; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. II para 29; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 14.

  57. 57.

    Wolff, in: R Wolff (ed), New York Convention (München, C.H. Beck et al, 2012), Art. II para 23; van den Berg, New York Convention, 56.

  58. 58.

    BGH (08.06.2010, XI ZR 349/08), SchiedsVZ 2011, 46, para 25; BGH (08.06.2010, XI ZR 41/09), RIW 2010, 885, para 19; BGH (03.05.2011, XI ZR 373/08), NJW-RR 2011, 1350, para 29; also see Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 28.

  59. 59.

    BGH (23.05.1991, III ZR 144/90), BGHR ZPO § 1025 Wirksamkeit I, paras 3–4; OLG Hamburg (12.03.1998, 6 U 110/97), IPRspr 1999/178, 425, para 72; OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47, para 85; Wilske/Fox, in: Wolff (ed), New York Convention, Art. II para 294; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 20.

  60. 60.

    OLG Koblenz (28.07.2005, 2 Sch 4/05), SchiedsVZ 2005, 260, paras 22–24.

  61. 61.

    See BGH (27.11.2008, III ZB 59/09), HambSchRZ 2009, 5, para 5.

  62. 62.

    OLG Frankfurt (27.08.2009, 26 SchH 3/09), IPRspr 2009/276, 709, para 27.

  63. 63.

    See, in general, Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 66; Kröll, IHR 2006, 255–259; also see Schulz/Niedermaier, SchiedsVZ 2009, 200.

  64. 64.

    OLG Hamm (27.09.2005, 29 Sch 1/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 106, paras 23–26.

  65. 65.

    BGH (09.03.2010, XI ZR 93/09), BGHZ 184, 365 = IPRax 2011, 497, para 22; BGH (08.06.2010, XI ZR 349/08), SchiedsVZ 2011, 46, para 38; BGH (08.06.2010, XI ZR 41/09), RIW 2010, 885, para 29; BGH (25.01.2011, XI ZR 350/08), SchiedsVZ 2011, 157, para 25; BGH (25.01.2011, XI ZR 100/09), RIW 2011, 406, paras 22, 27; BGH (22.03.2011, XI ZR 197/08), NJW-RR 2012, 49, para 25; BGH (12.04.2011, XI ZR 341/08), NJW-RR 2011, 1287, para 25.

  66. 66.

    OLG Hamburg (30.07.1998, 6 Sch 3/98), NJW-RR 1999, 1738, para 17; OLG München (11.07.2011, 34 Sch 15/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 337, para 37.

  67. 67.

    BayObLG (17.09.1998, 4Z Sch 1/98), BayObLGZ 1998, 219 = NJW-RR 1999, 644, paras 16–18; OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 25.

  68. 68.

    OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, paras 30, 36–37.

  69. 69.

    BGH (21.09.2005, III ZB 18/05), SchiedsVZ 2005, 306, para 10; also see OLG München (23.11.2009, 34 Sch 13/09), SchiedsVZ 2010, 50, para 24; also cf BayObLG (12.12.2002, 4Z Sch 16/02), BayObLGZ 2002, 392 = NJW-RR 2003, 719, para 18.

  70. 70.

    OLG Hamburg (30.07.1998, 6 Sch 3/98), NJW-RR 1999, 1738, para 17; OLG Rostock (22.11.2001, 1 Sch 3/00), IPRax 2002, 401, para 57 and case note Kröll, IPRax 2002, 384–388; OLG Frankfurt (27.08.2009, 26 SchH 3/09), IPRspr 2009/276, 709, paras 16–18; OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 25; also cf BayObLG (12.12.2002, 4Z Sch 16/02), BayObLGZ 2002, 392 = NJW-RR 2003, 719, para 18; OLG Frankfurt (26.06.2006, 26 Sch 28/05), IPRax 2008, 517, paras 16–17.

  71. 71.

    OLG Hamburg (30.07.1998, 6 Sch 3/98), NJW-RR 1999, 1738, para 17.

  72. 72.

    OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, paras 35, 47–48.

  73. 73.

    BGH (03.12.1992, III ZR 30/91), NJW 1993, 1798, para 15; BGH (08.06.2010, XI ZR 41/09), RIW 2010, 885, paras 23–25; OLG Düsseldorf (09.02.2007, 17 U 39/06), para 41; also see Münch, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1031 para 25; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch 44 para 13.

  74. 74.

    ZPO § 1031 provides:

    Ҥ 1031. Form of arbitration agreement

    (1) The arbitration agreement shall be contained either in a document signed by the parties or in an exchange of letters, telefaxes, telegrams or other means of telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement.

    (2) The form requirement of subsection 1 shall be deemed to have been complied with if the arbitration agreement is contained in a document transmitted from one party to the other party or by a third party to both parties and – if no objection was raised in good time – the contents of such document are considered to be part of the contract in accordance with common usage.

    (3) The reference in a contract complying with the form requirements of subsection 1 or 2 to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement provided that the reference is such as to make that clause part of the contract.

    (4) An arbitration agreement is also concluded by the issuance of a bill of lading, if the latter contains an express reference to an arbitration clause in a charter party.

    (5) Arbitration agreements to which a consumer is a party must be contained in a document which has been personally signed by the parties. The written form pursuant to subsection 1 may be substituted by electronic form pursuant to § 126 a of the Civil Code [“Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch”]. No agreements other than those referring to the arbitral proceedings may be contained in such a document or electronic document; this shall not apply in the case of a notarial certification.

    (6) Any non-compliance with the form requirements is cured by entering into argument on the substance of the dispute in the arbitral proceedings.”

  75. 75.

    KG (20.01.2011, 20 Sch 9/09), SchiedsVZ 2011, 285, para 17; also see Geimer, in: Zöller, Zivilprozessordnung (30th edn, Köln, Otto Schmidt, 2014), § 1031 para 4.

  76. 76.

    See KG (20.01.2011, 20 Sch 9/09), SchiedsVZ 2011, 285, paras 18–21.

  77. 77.

    Art. I(2) of the EuC provides: “For the purpose of this Convention, (a) the term ’arbitration agreement‘ shall mean either an arbitral clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement, the contract or arbitration agreement being signed by the parties, or contained in an exchange of letters, telegrams, or in a communication by teleprinter and, in relations between States whose laws do not require that an arbitration agreement be made in writing, any arbitration agreement concluded in the form authorized by these laws; […]”.

  78. 78.

    OLG München (23.11.2009, 34 Sch 13/09), SchiedsVZ 2010, 50, para 25; also cf BayObLG (12.12.2002, 4Z Sch 16/02), BayObLGZ 2002, 392 = NJW-RR 2003, 719, para 19.

  79. 79.

    Art. II(3) of the Convention, ZPO § 1032(I).

  80. 80.

    Cf Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, § 1032 para 11.

  81. 81.

    BGH (13.01.2005, III ZR 265/03), SchiedsVZ 2005, 95 para 16 (holding that a Kompetenz-Kompetenz also cannot be conferred on the tribunal by agreement of the parties); Huber, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1032 para 31; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, § 1032 para 11; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1040 para 2; Wolf/Eslami, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1032 para 2.

  82. 82.

    Cf, with regard to Art. II of the Convention, Wilske/Fox, in: Wolff (ed), New York Convention, Art. II para 303; van den Berg, New York Convention, 155. One instance of an arbitration agreement that is considered to be “incapable of being performed” may be seen in German decisions finding lack of funding as a defense to arbitration: Cf BGH (14.09.2000, III ZR 33/00), NJW 2000, 3720, para 13; KG (13.08.2001, 2 W 8057/99), SchiedsVZ 2003, 239, para 4. See Wilske/Fox, in: Wolff (ed), New York Convention, Art. II para 314–316 (advocating a more restrictive approach regarding that defense); Huber, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1032 para 18; Wolf/Eslami, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1032 para 15.

  83. 83.

    BGH (25.10.1966, KZR 7/65), BGHZ 46, 365 = NJW 1976, 1178, para 44; OLG Düsseldorf (21.07.2004, VI-Sch (Kart) 1/02), IPRspr 2004/195, 443, para 25; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 4; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch 56 para 3; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 28; Solomon, Verbindlichkeit, 160–168; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 14. Contra: Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 73.

  84. 84.

    Cf Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 42.

  85. 85.

    For a thorough discussion of this problem see, eg, Kröll, IPRax 2007, 430–437; also cf Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 50; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 paras 57–59.

  86. 86.

    BGH (26.06.1969, VII ZR 32/67), BGHZ 52, 184 = NJW 1969, 2093; BGH (07.01.1971, VII ZR 160/69), BGHZ 55, 162 = NJW 1971, 986, paras 34–58; BGH (21.10.1971, VII ZR 45/70), BGHZ 57, 153 = NJW 1972, 449, para 12; BGH (10.05.1984, III ZR 206/82), NJW 1984, 2763, para 20; BGH (26.04.1990, III ZR 56/89), IPRspr 1990/236b, 512, para 7; also see BGH (16.12.2010, III ZB 100/09), BGHZ 188, 1 = SchiedsVZ 2011, 105, para 5.

  87. 87.

    Cf BGH (15.01.2009, III ZB 83/07), SchiedsVZ 2009, 126 (regarding Art. V(1)(b) of the Convention, but left undecided); OLG Karlsruhe (03.07.2006, 9 Sch 1/06), SchiedsVZ 2006, 281 (regarding Art. V(1)(b) of the Convention); OLG Karlsruhe (27.03.2006, 9 Sch 2/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 335 (same); also cf BGH (17.04.2008, III ZB 97/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 196, para 20 (“certain defenses, particularly such concerning the existence of a valid arbitration agreement”); Schütze, RIW 2011, 417.

  88. 88.

    BGH (26.04.1990, III ZR 56/89), IPRspr 1990/236b, 512, para 7; BGH (14.05.1992, III ZR 169/90), NJW 1992, 2299, para 10; BayObLG (16.03.2000, 4Z Sch 50/99), NJW-RR 2000, 431, para 24; cf BGH (16.12.2010, III ZB 100/09), BGHZ 188, 1 = SchiedsVZ 2011, 105, para 8; Kröll, IPRax 2007, 432–433.

  89. 89.

    OLG Stuttgart (14.10.2003, 1 Sch 16/02, 1 Sch 6/03), paras 60–65; OLG Karlsruhe (27.03.2006, 9 Sch 2/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 335, paras 12–13; OLG Karlsruhe (28.06.2006, 9 Sch 1/06), SchiedsVZ 2006, 282; OLG Karlsruhe (03.07.2006, 9 Sch 1/06), SchiedsVZ 2006, 281, paras 16–17; OLG Karlsruhe (14.09.2007, 9 Sch 2/07), SchiedsVZ 2008, 47, paras 14–17; OLG Karlsruhe (04.01.2012, 9 Sch 2/09), SchiedsVZ 2012, 101, para 35–36; KG (17.04.2008, 20 Sch 2/08), KGR Berlin 2008, 839, paras 21–23.

  90. 90.

    BayObLG (16.03.2000, 4Z Sch 50/99), NJW-RR 2000, 431, paras 23–24; OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 44; OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, paras 42–45; OLG Schleswig (15.05.2009, 16 Sch 1/09), SchiedsVZ 2010, 276, para 16. – But confer Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 50 (considering the permissive standard of Art. V of the Convention (“may”) to provide a sufficient basis for preclusion).

  91. 91.

    See, eg, KG (10.08.2006, 20 Sch 7/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 108, paras 90–93 (but see n. 93); OLG Hamm (27.09.2005, 29 Sch 1/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 107, paras 20–21 (principle of good faith processing).

  92. 92.

    See, eg, KG (10.08.2006, 20 Sch 7/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 108, para 94; on appeal, the BGH, disagreeing with the KG’s good-faith analysis, left the matter undecided, as Danish law (being the lex arbitri) did not impose any time limit on the possibility of annulment; BGH (17.04.2008, III ZB 97/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 196, paras 20–21. Also see BGH (15.01.2009, III ZB 83/07), SchiedsVZ 2009, 126 (left undecided because Respondent could not prove any causal connection between the alleged procedural error and the outcome of the case); OLG Rostock (22.11.2001, 1 Sch 3/00), IPRax 2002, 401, paras 71–78 (left undecided, because the tribunal had “in manifest disregard of the law and thus arbitrarily” assumed that there had been an agreement to arbitrate) and case note Kröll, IPRax 2002, 384–388.

  93. 93.

    BGH (16.12.2010, III ZB 100/09), BGHZ 188, 1 = SchiedsVZ 2011, 105. Case notes: accord: Schütze, RIW 2011, 417–419; Otto, IPRax 2012, 223–226 (with a strong comparative focus); contra: Wolff, LMK 2011, 318374. The court below had quite offhandedly rejected any preclusion: OLG München (23.11.2009, 34 Sch 13/09), SchiedsVZ 2010, 50, para 23. – The BGH decision was followed by KG (04.06.2012, 20 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2013, 112, paras 74–78, reversed on other grounds by BGH (30.01.2013, III ZB 40/12), SchiedsVZ 2013, 110.

  94. 94.

    BGH (16.12.2010, III ZB 100/09), BGHZ 188, 1 = SchiedsVZ 2011, 105, paras 8–10; accord: Kröll, IPRax 2007, 431–432; Schütze, RIW 2011, 418; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 6; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 20; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 30 para 19; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 58; contra: Geimer, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht, para 3906a.

  95. 95.

    BGH (16.12.2010, III ZB 100/09), BGHZ 188, 1 = SchiedsVZ 2011, 105, paras 11–12.

  96. 96.

    BGH (16.12.2010, III ZB 100/09), BGHZ 188, 1 = SchiedsVZ 2011, 105, para 17; also cf BGH (17.04.2008, III ZB 97/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 196, para 12. In the same sense Wolff, LMK 2011, 318374; possibly also Pfeiffer, LMK 2008, 264038; more generally KG (10.08.2006, 20 Sch 7/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 108, para 91 (integral part of all legal systems). – Also see van den Berg, New York Convention, 185; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 paras 53, 55; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch 44 para 10; Kröll, IPRax 2007, 434; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 59.

  97. 97.

    BGH, ibid. In the same sense, BGH (17.04.2008, III ZB 97/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 196, paras 13–18, against the court below; cf n 93.

  98. 98.

    For a detailed analysis of factors relevant in determining whether preclusion should occur on that basis, cf Kröll, IPRax 2007, 435–437.

  99. 99.

    BGH (12.07.1990, III ZR 218/89), BGHR ZPO § 1044 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 Befangenheit 1, para 2; BGH (01.02.2001, III ZR 332/99), NJW-RR 2001, 1059, paras 21–23; BGH (16.12.2010, III ZB 100/09), BGHZ 188, 1 = SchiedsVZ 2011, 105, para 8; OLG Hamm (28.11.2008, 25 Sch 8/08), IHR 2010, 84, para 29.

  100. 100.

    BGH (16.12.2010, III ZB 100/09), BGHZ 188, 1 = SchiedsVZ 2011, 105, paras 11, 15–16.

  101. 101.

    Cf, eg, BGH (17.04.2008, III ZB 97/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 196, para 20 (“defenses against a foreign award which could have been raised in the country of origin by a time-limited court proceedings but have not been so raised (and thus are precluded in the country of origin)”). Also cf OLG Karlsruhe (03.07.2006, 9 Sch 1/06), SchiedsVZ 2006, 281, para 16, and OLG Karlsruhe (27.03.2006, 9 Sch 2/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 335, para 12: foreign rules on preclusion must be given effect in the same way as German rules (however, the court only notes the foreign time limits, not the corresponding preclusion rules!). Further, see OLG Karlsruhe (14.09.2007, 9 Sch 2/07), SchiedsVZ 2008, 47, para 17, referring to the Taiwanese time limit and preclusion.

  102. 102.

    Kröll, IPRax 2007, 434–435, 437; Wolff, LMK 2011, 318374.

  103. 103.

    See Solomon, Verbindlichkeit, 679–693.

  104. 104.

    OLG Düsseldorf (21.07.2004, VI-Sch (Kart) 1/02), IPRspr 2004/195, 443, para 24; OLG Koblenz (28.07.2005, 2 Sch 4/05), SchiedsVZ 260, paras 25–27; OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, para 32; OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 45; OLG München (19.11.2012, 34 Sch 7/11), SchiedsVZ 2013, 62, para 31. – Also cf OLG Frankfurt (26.06.2006, 26 Sch 28/05), IPRax 2008, 517, para 13, but holding at para 14 that no waiver will occur with regard to the “in writing” requirement of Art. II of the Convention; accord: Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 57 para 2. That decision appears doubtful; in any case, the reference by the OLG Frankfurt to the prior decision of BayObLG (12.12.2002, 4Z Sch 16/02), BayObLGZ 2002, 392 = NJW-RR 2003, 719 = RIW 2003, 383 is of no avail, as in that case the Respondent had not entered any pleadings on the merits.

  105. 105.

    See, eg, OLG München (19.11.2012, 34 Sch 7/11), SchiedsVZ 2013, 62, para 31 (noting that a waiver was provided for both by German law, ZPO § 1031(VI), and Polish law as lex arbitri; thus there was no need to decide the choice-of-law issue). Also cf OLG Hamburg (30.07.1998,6 Sch 3/98), NJW-RR 1999, 1738, para 17 (holding that the parties had cured an initially invalid arbitration agreement by later concluding an agreement that met the requirements of Art. II of the Convention); Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 59.

  106. 106.

    Cf Kröll, IPRax 2007, 430.

  107. 107.

    OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, paras 38–40.

  108. 108.

    BGH (16.12.2010, III ZB 100/09), BGHZ 188, 1 = SchiedsVZ 2011, 105, paras 11–12; cf OLG München (19.01.2009, 34 Sch 4/08), OLGR München 2009, 263, para 34; KG (04.06.2012, 20 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2013, 112, para 76, reversed on other grounds by BGH (30.01.2013, III ZB 40/12), SchiedsVZ 2013, 110. Also cf OLG München (11.07.2011, 34 Sch 15/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 337, para 35 (left undecided, since the objection was without merit anyhow).

  109. 109.

    For the more hesitant statements of German commentators, cf infra n 148.

  110. 110.

    OLG München (22.06.2009, 34 Sch 26/08), SchiedsVZ 2010, 169, paras 32, 39.

  111. 111.

    OLG Thüringen (08.08.2007, 4 Sch 3/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 44, paras 26–30 (quotation taken from para 30).

  112. 112.

    OLG Naumburg (04.03.2011, 10 Sch 4/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 228.

  113. 113.

    Ibid, para 14.

  114. 114.

    The question was left undecided by OLG Hamm (28.11.2008, 25 Sch 8/08), IHR 2010, 84, para 19. – German commentators are divided. The majority seems to be against the recognition of such decisions: Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 75; Geimer, in: Zöller, ZPO, § 1061 para 25. Others argue in favor of recognition: Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 12; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 20; Solomon, Verbindlichkeit, 517–532, 548 et seq.

  115. 115.

    In that respect, cf Solomon, Verbindlichkeit, 570–609.

  116. 116.

    OLG Hamburg (24.01.2003, 11 Sch 6/01), SchiedsVZ 2003, 284, para 34; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 paras 18, 21; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 127; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 paras 18–19.

  117. 117.

    BGH (01.02.2001, III ZR 332/99), NJW-RR 2001, 1059, para 13; OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, para 32; Kröll, Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 46; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 13; Wilske/Markert, BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 55.

  118. 118.

    OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, para 33; OLG Rostock (22.11.2001, 1 Sch 3/00), IPRax 2002, 401, para 50; OLG Brandenburg (13.06.2002, 8 Sch 2/01), IPRax 2003, 349, paras 30–33; BayObLG (12.12.2002, 4Z Sch 16/02), BayObLGZ 2002, 392 = NJW-RR 2003, 719, para 16; OLG Frankfurt (26.06.2006, 26 Sch 28/05), IPRax 2008, 517, para 14; OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 24; OLG München (23.11.2009, 34 Sch 13/09), SchiedsVZ 2010, 50, para 23; OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 24; OLG München (11.07.2011, 34 Sch 15/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 337, paras 38–39. Accord: Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 74; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 30 para 26.

  119. 119.

    OLG Brandenburg (13.06.2002, 8 Sch 2/01), IPRax 2003, 349, paras 32–33; OLG Celle (04.09.2003, 8 Sch 11/02), SchiedsVZ 2004, 165, paras 21–22; OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 24.

  120. 120.

    OLG Celle (04.09.2003, 8 Sch 11/02), SchiedsVZ 2004, 165, paras 16, 21–22; OLG München (19.01.2009, 34 Sch 4/08), OLGR München 2009, 263, para 22 (concerning the temporal scope of an arbitration agreement).

  121. 121.

    OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 24; OLG München (11.07.2011, 34 Sch 15/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 337, paras 38–48; OLG Brandenburg (13.06.2002, 8 Sch 2/01), IPRax 2003, 349, paras 32–33 (obiter);

  122. 122.

    Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 paras 47, 58; Kröll, ZZP 117 (2004), 464–466; Kröll, SchiedsVZ 2004, 121; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 3; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 55.

  123. 123.

    BGH (21.09.2005, III ZB 18/05), SchiedsVZ 2005, 306; case note: Geimer, IPRax 2006, 233–236.

  124. 124.

    BGH (30.09.2010, III ZB 69/09), BGHZ 187, 126 = SchiedsVZ 2010, 332; case notes: Pfeiffer, LMK 2010, 310078; Quinke, SchiedsVZ 2011, 169–173.

  125. 125.

    BGH (21.09.2005, III ZB 18/05), SchiedsVZ 2005, 306, paras 12–14, 17.

  126. 126.

    BGH (21.09.2005, III ZB 18/05), SchiedsVZ 2005, 306, paras 15–20.

  127. 127.

    BGH (30.09.2010, III ZB 69/09), BGHZ 187, 126 = SchiedsVZ 2010, 332; for case notes see above n 117.

  128. 128.

    Cf court below: OLG Frankfurt (27.08.2009, 26 SchH 3/09), IPRspr 2009/276, 709, paras 2–4, 6.

  129. 129.

    See Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1031 para 18, § 1061 para 14; Münch, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 paras 6, 19; Otto, IPRax 2003, 335. In the same sense, originally, Geimer, IPRax 2006, 235 (but considering this to be a “grotesque result”); as a consequence, Geimer later changed his view and concurred with the 2010 BGH decision, see Geimer, in: Zöller, ZPO, § 1031 para 25, § 1061 para 22a (30th edn; as compared to the prior commentary in the 28th edn).

  130. 130.

    OLG Rostock (22.11.2001, 1 Sch 3/00), IPRax 2002, 401, paras 58–62 and case note Kröll, IPRax 2002, 384–388; OLG Frankfurt (27.08.2009, 26 SchH 3/09), IPRspr 2009/276, 709, paras 20–21 (court below in the BGH proceedings); also cf BayObLG (12.12.2002, 4Z Sch 16/02), BayObLGZ 2002, 392 = NJW-RR 2003, 719, para 19; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 paras 50, 76, 159; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. II para 18.– The question was left undecided (as on the facts of the case, ZPO § 1031 had not been complied with either) by OLG Brandenburg (13.06.2002, 8 Sch 2/01), IPRax 2003, 349, paras 47–54 and case note Otto, IPRax 2003, 333–335; OLG Frankfurt (26.06.2006, 26 Sch 28/05), IPRax 2008, 517, para 18; OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 39; BGH (21.09.2005, III ZB 18/05), SchiedsVZ 2005, 306, para 17 (but indicating that “there was much to be said for the wider interpretation in favor of recognition”. – As to the situation under old law, see BGH (03.12.1992, III ZR 30/91), NJW 1993, 1798, para 15 (not considering any further restrictions concerning the applicability of more favorable national law).

  131. 131.

    BGH (30.09.2010, III ZB 69/09), BGHZ 187, 126 = SchiedsVZ 2010, 332, paras 5–11.

  132. 132.

    Ibid, para 7.

  133. 133.

    Ibid, paras 10–11. Also cf Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 60.

  134. 134.

    Ibid, para 12.

  135. 135.

    Pfeiffer, LMK 2010, 310078; also cf Quinke, SchiedsVZ 2001, 171–173.

  136. 136.

    Hausmann, in: C Reithmann, D Martiny et al (eds), Internationales Vertragsrecht (7th edn, Köln, Otto Schmidt, 2010), paras 6676, 6708–6710.

  137. 137.

    Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 60; Pfeiffer, LMK 2010, 310078; Niedermaier, SchiedsVZ 2012, 180–181. In that respect, also see OLG Frankfurt (27.08.2009, 26 SchH 3/09), IPRspr 2009/276, 709, paras 21, 25 (the decision of the court below, holding that under Art. VII of the Convention both English law as the law applicable to the arbitration agreement and German law could lead to the validity of the arbitration agreement); OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, paras 26–40; OLG (03.02.2011, 6 U 35/09), IPRspr 2011/296, 788, paras 77–79.

  138. 138.

    OLG Dresden (07.12.2007, 11 Sch 8/07), IPRax 2010, 241; OLG Bremen (30.10.2008, 2 Sch 2/08), IPRspr 2008/204, 649; OLG Celle (04.12.2008, 8 Sch 13/07), IPRspr 2008/207, 658; OLG Thüringen (13.01.2011, 1 Sch 1/08), IPRspr 2011/293, 781. Case notes: Schulz/Niedermaier, SchiedsVZ 2009, 196–203; Eichel, IPRax 2010, 219–224.

  139. 139.

    OLG Celle (04.12.2008, 8 Sch 13/07), IPRspr 2008/207, 658, para 24; OLG Thüringen (13.01.2011, 1 Sch 1/08), IPRspr 2011/293, 781.

  140. 140.

    OLG Dresden (07.12.2007, 11 Sch 8/07), IPRax 2010, 241, para 12; OLG Bremen (30.10.2008, 2 Sch 2/08), IPRspr 2008/204, 649, para 11. Cf, in that respect, Schulz/Niedermaier, SchiedsVZ 2009, 198.

  141. 141.

    General Civil Code, § 879(III): “A contractual provision contained in general contract terms or contract forms and which does not determine the main obligations of the parties under the contract is void if, in consideration of all circumstances of the case, it is grossly disadvantageous to one of the parties.”

  142. 142.

    OLG Dresden (07.12.2007, 11 Sch 8/07), IPRax 2010, 241, paras 17–18; OLG Bremen (30.10.2008, 2 Sch 2/08), IPRspr 2008/204, 649, paras 22–30; OLG Celle (04.12.2008, 8 Sch 13/07), IPRspr 2008/207, 658, paras 27–34; OLG Thüringen (13.01.2011, 1 Sch 1/08), IPRspr 2011/293, 781. For a more differentiated analysis of the substantive issues involved, see Eichel, IPRax 2010, 222–224.

  143. 143.

    BGH (12.05.1958, VII ZR 436/56), BGHZ 27, 249 = NJW 1958, 1538; BGH (27.02.1964, VII ZR 134/62), WM 1964, 549; OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, para 46; OLG Celle (04.09.2003, 8 Sch 11/02), SchiedsVZ 2004, 165, para 24; OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, para 29; OLG Bremen (30.10.2008, 2 Sch 2/08), IPRspr 2008/204, 649, para 23; OLG München (19.01.2009, 34 Sch 4/08), OLGR München 2009, 263, paras 23, 31; OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 28; also cf OLG Rostock (22.11.2001, 1 Sch 3/00), IPRax 2002, 401, para 78, and case note Kröll, IPRax 2002, 384–388.

  144. 144.

    OLG Hamm (27.09.2005, 29 Sch 1/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 107, para 22.

  145. 145.

    OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, para 46; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, § 1040 para 13; Münch, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1040 para 46, 51–53; Geimer, in: Zöller, ZPO, § 1040 para 8; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 54.

  146. 146.

    BGH (03.03.1955, II ZR 323/55), KTS 1961, 26; BGH (26.05.1988, III ZR 46/87), NJW-RR 1988, 1526, para 19; BGH (06.07.1991, III ZR 177/74), BGHZ 68, 356, para 36; cf BGH (13.01.2005, III ZR 265/03), SchiedsVZ 2005, 95, paras 14–18.

  147. 147.

    BGH (13.01.2005, III ZR 265/03), SchiedsVZ 2005, 95, paras 16–18; Münch, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1040 paras 7, 51–53; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1040 para 2; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 24 para 9; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 54.

  148. 148.

    Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 76; Geimer, in: Zöller, ZPO, § 1061 para 22; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 54.

  149. 149.

    OLG Bremen (30.09.1999, 2 Sch 4/99), BB 1999, Beilage Nr. 50, 18, paras 19–20; KG (18.05.2006, 20 Sch 13/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 100, paras 16–17.

  150. 150.

    Cf, eg, OLG München (14.11.2011, 34 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 43, paras 37–47, where the analysis was done in relation to all three provisions. Also cf Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 68; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 27.

  151. 151.

    Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 83a; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 57 para 9; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 69; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 25.

  152. 152.

    BayObLG (16.03.2000, 4Z Sch 50/99), NJW-RR 2001, 431, para 20; however, the BayObLG also comes to the conclusion that even the requirements of the Russian Act had not been met; ibid, at paras 21–22.

  153. 153.

    See, with regard to the substantive standard: OLG Hamburg (14.05.1999, 1 Sch 2/99), OLGR Hamburg 2000, 19, paras 29–30; OLG Hamburg (31.07.2003, 6 Sch 2/03), OLGR Hamburg 2004, 97, paras 17–19; OLG Bremen (10.11.2005, 2 Sch 2/05), OLGR Bremen 2006, 263, para 20; OLG Köln (23.03.2004, 9 Sch 1/03), SchiedsVZ 2005, 163, paras 26–27; OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, paras 33–34; OLG München (22.06.2009, 34 Sch 26/08), SchiedsVZ 2010, 169, para 42; OLG München (14.11.2011, 34 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 43, para 41; OLG München (11.04.2012, 34 Sch 21/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 156, paras 45–46; OLG Frankfurt (27.08.2009, 26 SchH 3/09), IPRspr 2009/276, 709, para 29; OLG Naumburg (04.03.2011, 10 Sch 4/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 228, para 27. – Under the former law: BGH (26.10.1972, VII ZR 232/71), NJW 1973, 98, paras 41–47; BGH (29.09.1983, III ZR 213/82), WM 1983, 1207, paras 15–18; BGH (11.11.1982, III ZR 77/81), BGHZ 85, 288 = NJW 1983, 867, paras 12–13; BGH (26.09.1985, III ZR 16/84), BGHZ 96, 40 = NJW 1986, 1436, paras 36–42; BGH (18.01.1990, III ZR 269/88), BGHZ 110, 104 = NJW 1990, 2199, paras 19–27; BGH (14.05.1992, III ZR 169/90), NJW 1992, 2299, paras 11–18. Also see Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 paras 70, 72–79; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 24.

  154. 154.

    OLG München (14.11.2011, 34 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 43, paras 37–47.

  155. 155.

    Ibid, para 46.

  156. 156.

    Cf, eg, BGH (06.12.1965, VII ZR 149/63), NJW 1966, 549, paras 9, 12–13 (regarding a domestic award); OLG Hamburg (12.03.1998, 6 U 110/97), IPRspr 1999/178, 425, paras 93–101; OLG Bremen (10.11.2005, 2 Sch 2/05), OLGR Bremen 2006, 263, para 20; OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, para 42; OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47, para 59–64; OLG München (11.04.2012, 34 Sch 21/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 156, paras 46, 51. Also cf Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 99; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 78.

  157. 157.

    Ibid, para 41.

  158. 158.

    OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, para 33; OLG Naumburg (04.03.2011, 10 Sch 4/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 228, para 28; OLG München (14.11.2011, 34 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 43, para 39; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 83a; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch 30 para 21.

  159. 159.

    OLG Hamburg (30.07.1998, 6 Sch 3/98), BB 1999, Beilage 4, 13, para 18; OLG München (22.06.2009, 34 Sch 26/08), SchiedsVZ 2010, 169, para 43.

  160. 160.

    See OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, para 36. The court may also resort to the implied will of the parties; see, eg, OLG München (22.06.2009, 34 Sch 26/08), SchiedsVZ 2010, 169, paras 35–39

  161. 161.

    See Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 76; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, § 1045 para 3; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 16 para 42.

  162. 162.

    OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, para 51.

  163. 163.

    BGH (10.10.1951, II ZR 99/51), BGHZ 3, 215 = NJW 1952, 27; BGH (08.10.1959, VII ZR 87/58), BGHZ 31, 43 = NJW 1959, 2213; BGH (26.09.1985, III ZR 16/84), BGHZ 96, 40 = NJW 1986, 1436, para 41; BGH (18.01.1990, III ZR 269/88), BGHZ 110, 104 = NJW 1990, 2199, para 21; BGH (14.05.1992, III ZR 169/90), NJW 1992, 2299, para 12; OLG Bremen (30.09.1999, 2 Sch 4/99), BB 1999, Beilage Nr. 50, 18, para 25; cf BGH (15.01.2009, III ZB 83/07), SchiedsVZ 2009, 126, para 7; OLG Naumburg (04.03.2011, 10 Sch 4/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 228, para 28 (obiter); Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 82; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 32; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 15; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 28.

  164. 164.

    BGH (15.05.1986, III ZR 192/84), BGHZ 98, 70 = NJW 1986, 3027, para 23; BGH (15.01.2009, III ZB 83/07), SchiedsVZ 2009, 126, para 9; OLG Bremen (30.09.1999, 2 Sch 4/99), BB 1999, Beilage Nr. 50, 18, para 25; also see Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 paras 82, 122; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 74.

  165. 165.

    See, in that respect, Eberl, SchiedsVZ 2003, 109–114.

  166. 166.

    See, eg, Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 84; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch 24 para 15. – Some commentators analyze these cases under Art. V(1)(d) of the Convention, eg Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 115; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 16. OLG Hamburg (30.07.1998, 6 Sch 3/98), NJW-RR 1999, 1738, para 21, mentions both Art. V(1)(c) and (d). – Cf, regarding a domestic award, OLG Köln (28.06.2011, 19 Sch 11/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 161, paras 60, 63, where the court even applied the public policy exception of ZPO § 1059(II)(2)(b) where the award held the Respondents jointly liable although the Claimant had only sought personal liability. Moreover, the court also considered this to be in breach of ZPO § 1059(II)(1)(b) as the Respondents had not had the possibility to adequately defend themselves against the allegation of joint liability. Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 33 want to apply Art. (V)(1)(c) of the Convention only where the decision also exceeds the arbitration agreement; in any other case Art. V(1)(d) of the Convention should apply.

  167. 167.

    See Gerstenmaier, SchiedsVZ 2012, 3, regarding interest on costs.

  168. 168.

    OLG Hamburg (30.07.1998, 6 Sch 3/98), NJW-RR 1999, 1738, para 21 (regarding Art. 49 of the English Arbitration Act).

  169. 169.

    OLG Naumburg (04.03.2011, 10 Sch 4/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 228, paras 39–48.

  170. 170.

    OLG Koblenz (27.11.2012, 2 Sch 2/12), WM 2013, 1327, paras 22–23. – These cases could also be analyzed on the basis of Art. V(1)(a) of the Convention, with the same result; cf Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 paras 64, 85; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 16.

  171. 171.

    BGH (14.04.1988, III ZR 12/87), BGHZ 104, 178 = NJW 1988, 3090 (reversing OLG Stuttgart (22.12.1986, 5 U 3/86), RIW 1988, 480); OLG Karlsruhe, 04.01.2012, 9 Sch 2/09, SchiedsVZ 2012, 101, para 45; also see Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 44; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 24 para 16.

  172. 172.

    Cf Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 86; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 43; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 118.

  173. 173.

    Cf Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 86; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 119.

  174. 174.

    OLG Bremen (30.09.1999, 2 Sch 4/99), BB 1999, Beilage Nr. 50, 18, para 22.

  175. 175.

    Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 122; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 47; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 17; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 50 para 2; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 89; Solomon, Verbindlichkeit, 58–62, 445–448, 453–458.

  176. 176.

    OLG Frankfurt (27.08.2009, 26 SchH 3/09), IPRspr 2009/276, 709, para 28.

  177. 177.

    OLG Dresden (06.08.2008, 11 Sch 2/08), SchiedsVZ 2008, 309, paras 27–32.

  178. 178.

    BGH (01.02.2001, III ZR 332/99), NJW-RR 2001, 1059, para 21; BGH (15.05.1986, III ZR 192/84), BGHZ 98, 70 = NJW 1986, 3027, para 17; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 94; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 75.

  179. 179.

    Cf Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 106; regarding domestic arbitration: BGH (19.05.1994, III ZR 130/93), NJW 1994, 2155, paras 5–6; OLG Naumburg (21.02.2002, 10 Sch 8/01), NJW-RR 2003, 71, paras 19–22.

  180. 180.

    OLG Hamburg (30.07.1998, 6 Sch 3/98), NJW-RR 1999, 1738, para 20; OLG Bremen (30.09.1999, 2 Sch 4/99), BB 1999, Beilage Nr. 50, 18, para 22.

  181. 181.

    See eg Solomon, RIW 1997, 987; Sandrock, JZ 1986, 373–374; Voit, JZ 1997, 123–124. Contra (procedural issue, révision au fond consequently no obstacle to review) Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 99.

  182. 182.

    BGH (26.09.1985, III ZR 16/84), BGHZ 96, 40 = NJW 1986, 1436, para 19; OLG Fankfurt (26.10.1983, 21 U 2/83), RIW 1984, 400; cf BayObLG (15.12.1999, 4Z Sch 23/99), BB 2000, Beilage Nr. 12, 16, para 31. Accord: Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 119; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1059 para 18; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Chap. 24 para 22.

  183. 183.

    BGH (26.09.1985, III ZR 16/84), BGHZ 96, 40 = NJW 1986, 1436, para 19; OLG München (11.04.2012, 34 Sch 21/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 156, para 50 (obiter). Cf (regarding a domestic award) OLG München (22.06.2005, 34 Sch 10/05), SchiedsVZ 2005, 308, para 21.

  184. 184.

    See BGH (15.01.2009, III ZB 83/07), SchiedsVZ 2009, 126, para 7; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 32; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 57 para 10; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 90; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 39.

  185. 185.

    OLG Saarbrücken (29.10.2002, 4 Sch 2/02), SchiedsVZ 2003, 92, paras 14–15.

  186. 186.

    Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 90.

  187. 187.

    BGH (14.04.1988, III ZR 12/87), BGHZ 104, 178 = NJW 1988, 3090, para 23. With regard to the abandonment of the double exequatur requirement in general, see van den Berg, New York Convention, 337–346; Liebscher, in: Wolff (ed), New York Convention, Art. V para 355; Solomon, Verbindlichkeit, 91–92, 113–116.

  188. 188.

    BayObLG (22.11.2002, 4Z Sch 13/02), SchiedsVZ 2003, 142, paras 47–48.

  189. 189.

    BGH (14.04.1988, III ZR 12/87), BGHZ 104, 178 = NJW 1988, 3090, para 23; BGH (22.02.2001, III ZB 71/99), NJW 2001, 1730, para 16; BayObLG (22.11.2002, 4Z Sch 13/02), SchiedsVZ 2003, 142, para 52; OLG Hamm (28.11.2008, 25 Sch 8/08), IHR 2010, 84, para 22; KG (04.06.2012, 20 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2013, 112, para 71, reversed on other grounds by BGH (30.01.2013, III ZB 40/12), SchiedsVZ 2013, 110.

  190. 190.

    BGH (26.06.1969, VII ZR 32/67), BGHZ 52, 184 = NJW 1969, 2093; BGH (14.04.1988, III ZR 12/87), BGHZ 104, 178 = NJW 1988, 3090, para 23; BayObLG (22.11.2002, 4Z Sch 13/02), SchiedsVZ 2003, 142, para 52; OLG Celle (20.11.2003); KG (17.04.2008, 20 Sch 2/08), KGR Berlin 2008, 839, para 20; KG (04.06.2012, 20 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2013, 112, para 71, reversed on other grounds by BGH (30.01.2013, III ZB 40/12), SchiedsVZ 2013, 110. Also cf BGH (23.02.2006, III ZB 50/05), BGHZ 166, 278 = SchiedsVZ 2006, 161, para 23.

  191. 191.

    BGH (17.04.2008, III ZB 97/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 196, paras 15, 16; OLG München (30.07.2012, 34 Sch 18/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 339, para 42.

  192. 192.

    BGH (17.04.2008, III ZB 97/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 196, para 15, and decision below: KG (10.08.2006, 20 Sch 7/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 108, para 92.

  193. 193.

    KG (10.08.2006, 20 Sch 7/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 108, para 92.

  194. 194.

    KG (10.08.2006, 20 Sch 7/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 108, para 92.

  195. 195.

    KG (10.08.2006, 20 Sch 7/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 108, para 104.

  196. 196.

    ZPO § 328.

  197. 197.

    BGH (23.04.2013, III ZB 59/12), SchiedsVZ 2013, 229, para 9; OLG Rostock (28.10.1999, 1 Sch 3/99), BB 2000, Beilage Nr. 8, 20, para 39, reversed on other grounds by BGH (22.02.2001, III ZB 71/99), NJW 2001, 1730; Münch, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 para 12; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 18; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 30 para 14; this question was also left undecided on appeal by BGH (21.05.2008, III ZB 14/07), SchiedsVZ 2008, 195, para 8. – Contra: Schütze, Das internationale Zivilprozessrecht in der ZPO, 2nd ed. 2011, § 1061 para 120; Geimer, in: Zöller, ZPO, § 328 para 267, § 1061 para 25; Geimer, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht, para 3944; also see Solomon, Verbindlichkeit, 156–159.

  198. 198.

    BGH (23.04.2013, III ZB 59/12), SchiedsVZ 2013, 229, para 9.

  199. 199.

    BGH (17.04.2008, III ZB 97/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 196, para 16.

  200. 200.

    OLG München (30.07.2012, 34 Sch 18/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 339, confirmed on appeal by BGH (23.04.2013, III ZB 59/12), SchiedsVZ 2013, 299; OLG Dresden (31.01.2007, II Sch 18/05), SchiedsVZ 2007, 327, confirmed on appeal by BGH (21.05.2008, III ZB 14/07), SchiedsVZ 2008, 195; OLG München (13.02.1995, 17 U 6591/93), OLGR München 1995, 57; reversed on other grounds by BGH (03.07.1997, III ZR 75/95), NJW-RR 1997, 1289.

  201. 201.

    See, eg, Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 122; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 106; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 42.

  202. 202.

    OLG Dresden (06.08.2008, 11 Sch 2/08), SchiedsVZ 2008, 309, para 34; KG (04.06.2012, 20 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2013, 112, para 90, reversed on other grounds by BGH (30.01.2013, III ZB 40/12), SchiedsVZ 2013, 110. Also cf BayObLG (22.11.2002, 4Z Sch 13/02), SchiedsVZ 2003, 142, para 60 (where, however, the Court analyzed the chances of success with regard to the grounds of refusal under Article V of the Convention rather than the grounds for setting aside the award in the country of origin, ie California; see, in that respect, Plaßmeier, SchiedsVZ 2004, 237).

  203. 203.

    KG (04.06.2012, 20 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2013, 112, para 94, reversed on other grounds by BGH (30.01.2013, III ZB 40/12), SchiedsVZ 2013, 110.

  204. 204.

    KG (18.05.2006, 20 Sch 13/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 100, para 19.

  205. 205.

    OLG Rostock (28.10.1999, 1 Sch 3/99), BB 2000, Beilage Nr. 8, 20.

  206. 206.

    BGH (22.02.2001, III ZB 71/99), NJW 2001, 1730.

  207. 207.

    OLG Rostock (28.10.1999, 1 Sch 3/99), BB 2000, Beilage Nr. 8, 20, para 30.

  208. 208.

    Ibid, paras 39–40.

  209. 209.

    Ibid, para 43.

  210. 210.

    BGH (22.02.2001, III ZB 71/99), NJW 2001, 1730, paras 16–17.

  211. 211.

    ZPO § 1030: “Arbitrability.

    (1) Any claim involving an economic interest (“vermögensrechtlicher Anspruch”) can be the subject of an arbitration agreement. An arbitration agreement concerning claims not involving an economic interest shall have legal effect to the extent that the parties are entitled to conclude a settlement on the issue in dispute.

    (2) An arbitration agreement relating to disputes on the existence of a lease of residential accommodation within Germany shall be null and void. This does not apply to residential accommodation as specified in § 549 subs. 1 to 3 of the Civil Code.

    (3) Statutory provisions outside this Book by virtue of which certain disputes may not be submitted to arbitration, or may be submitted to arbitration only under certain conditions, remain unaffected.”

  212. 212.

    BGH (07.01.1971, VII ZR 160/69), BGHZ 55, 162 = NJW 1971, 986, para 66; BGH (15.05.1986, III ZR 192/84), BGHZ 98, 70 = NJW 1986, 3027, para 15; BGH (18.01.1990, III ZR 269/88), BGHZ 110, 104 = NJW 1990, 2199, para 11; BGH (26.02.1991, XI ZR 349/89), NJW-RR 1991, 757, para 14; OLG Hamburg (12.03.1998, 6 U 110/97), IPRspr 1999/178, 430, para 89; OLG Bremen (30.09.1999, 2 Sch 4/99), BB 1999, Beilage Nr. 50, 18, para 27; OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, para 53; OLG Düsseldorf (21.07.2004, VI-Sch (Kart) 1/02), IPRspr 2004/195, 443, paras 26, 31; OLG München (28.11.2005, 34 Sch 19/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 111, para 22; OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, para 41; OLG Thüringen (08.08.2007, 4 Sch 3/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 44, para 24; OLG Schleswig (15.05.2009, 16 Sch 1/09), SchiedsVZ 2010, 276, para 20; OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47, para 40.

  213. 213.

    BGH (15.05.1986, III ZR 192/84), BGHZ 98, 70 = NJW 1986, 3027, para 14; BayObLG (20.11.2003, 4Z Sch 17/03), IHR 2004, 81, para 20; OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47, para 42.

  214. 214.

    BayObLG (20.11.2003, 4Z Sch 17/03), IHR 2004, 81, para 20; OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47, para 41.

  215. 215.

    BGH (15.05.1986, III ZR 192/84), BGHZ 98, 70 = NJW 1986, 3027, paras 14–15; BGH (18.01.1990, III ZR 269/88), BGHZ 110, 104 = NJW 1990, 2199, para 13; OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47, para 43; Geimer, in: Zöller, ZPO, § 1061 para 31; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 120.

  216. 216.

    OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47, para 43; Geimer, in: Zöller, ZPO, § 1061 para 31; also cf OLG München (11.04.2012, 34 Sch 21/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 156, para 45.

  217. 217.

    BGH (15.05.1986, III ZR 192/84), BGHZ 98, 70 = NJW 1986, 3027, para 23; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 74; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 66; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 23; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 48.

  218. 218.

    OLG Düsseldorf (21.07.2004, VI-Sch (Kart) 1/02), IPRspr 2004/195, 443, paras 25–26; OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47, para 41; OLG München (11.07.2011, 34 Sch 15/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 337, para 49; OLG München (30.07.2012, 34 Sch 18/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 339, para 37; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 108; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 74; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 3.

  219. 219.

    BGH (15.05.1986, III ZR 192/84), BGHZ 98, 70 = NJW 1986, 3027, para 14; BGH (18.01.1990, III ZR 269/88), BGHZ 110, 104 = NJW 1990, 2199, para 13; BGH (01.02.2001, III ZR 332/99), NJW-RR 2001, 1059, paras 17, 23; BGH (23.02.2006, III ZB 50/05), BGHZ 166, 278 = SchiedsVZ 2006, 161, paras 28–29; OLG Bremen (30.09.1999, 2 Sch 4/99), BB 1999, Beilage Nr. 50, 18, para 27; OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, para 53; BayObLG (20.11.2003, 4Z Sch 17/03), IHR 2004, 81, paras 21–22; OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, para 41; OLG Hamm (28.11.2008, 25 Sch 8/08), IHR 2010, 84, paras 28–29; OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47, paras 41, 46–47. Also see Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 135; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 paras 23–25; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 111; Wilske/Markert, in: BeckOK ZPO, § 1061 para 48.

  220. 220.

    See, eg, van den Berg, New York Convention, 361; Wolff, in: Wolff (ed), New York Convention, Art. I paras 496–498.

  221. 221.

    Cf, in particular, EGBGB Art. 6: “Public policy (ordre public). A provision of the law of another country shall not be applied where its application would lead to a result which is manifestly incompatible with the fundamental principles of German law. In particular, inapplicability ensues, if its application would be incompatible with civil rights.”

  222. 222.

    See, in that respect, Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Chap. 30 para 21; Sandrock, BB 2001, 2175–2176; Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 69; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 111; Kröll/Kraft, ibid, § 1059 para 79.

  223. 223.

    BGH (15.05.1986, III ZR 192/84), BGHZ 98, 70 = NJW 1986, 3027, paras 14–15; OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47, para 44; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch 30 para 21; Geimer, in: Zöller, ZPO, § 1061 para 42. In general, see Kegel & Schurig, Internationales Privatrecht (9th edn 2004) 521, 527–528; Kropholler, Internationales Privatrecht (6th edn 2006) 246.

  224. 224.

    OLG Karlsruhe (04.01.2012, 9 Sch 2/09), SchiedsVZ 2012, 101, para 40.

  225. 225.

    The incompatibility with constitutional civil rights is expressly mentioned as a case for the public-policy defense in EGBGB Art. 6, see n. 216.

  226. 226.

    See, for example, OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, para 41. Cf Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 11.

  227. 227.

    Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 135; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 30 para 21; Kröll/Kraft, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1059 para 79.

  228. 228.

    Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch 30 para 22; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 114.

  229. 229.

    OLG Hamburg (12.03.1998, 6 U 110/97), IPRspr 1999/178, 425, para 90; OLG Hamm (27.09.2005, 29 Sch 1/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 107, para 29; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 143; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 27 n 133.

  230. 230.

    For a review of examples from the older case law, see Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 14; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 116.

  231. 231.

    OLG Düsseldorf (21.07.2004, VI-Sch (Kart) 1/02), IPRspr 2004/195, 443, para 25; OLG Thüringen (08.08.2007, 4 Sch 3/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 44, para 31; also see ECJ (01.06.1999, C–126/97), ECR 1999, I–3055 = NJW 1999, 3549, para 39. Cf, regarding domestic awards, BGH (25.10.1966, KZR 7/65), BGHZ 46, 365 = NJW 1967, 1178, para 40; BGH (27.02.1969, KZR 3/68), NJW 1969, 978; BGH (31.05.1972, KZR 43/71), NJW 1972, 2180, para 12.

  232. 232.

    OLG München (30.07.2012, 34 Sch 18/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 339, paras 46–53; cf Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 145; Solomon, Verbindlichkeit, 650–655.

  233. 233.

    See, eg, on an award rendered in California, OLG Karlsruhe (04.01.2012, 9 Sch 2/09), SchiedsVZ 2012, 101, paras 38–41; cf, on domestic awards, BGH (29.01.2009, III ZB 88/07), BGHZ 179, 304 = SchiedsVZ 2009, 176, paras 20–28; also see BayObLG (25.08.2004, 4Z Sch 13/04), SchiedsVZ 2004, 319, paras 13–17.

  234. 234.

    Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 119; Wolff, in: Wolff (ed), New York Convention, Art. V paras 565.

  235. 235.

    OLG Bremen (30.09.1999, 2 Sch 4/99), BB 1999, Beilage Nr. 50, 18, para 29.

  236. 236.

    Adolphsen, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1061 Anh. 1 UNÜ Art. V para 17; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 121. Arguing for subsidiary application of the public-policy defense Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 150; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 30 para 23.

  237. 237.

    BGH (15.05.1986, III ZR 192/84), BGHZ 98, 70 = NJW 1986, 3027, paras 11–13, 16–17; OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, para 41; also see Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 124; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 24.

  238. 238.

    BayObLG (20.11.2003, 4Z Sch 17/03), IHR 2004, 81, paras 19–22: The BayObLG held that it constituted a violation of German public policy where the parties, before the award was made, had concluded a compromise in satisfaction of the award, agreeing that the Respondent would pay a certain sum and the Claimant would in turn discontinue the proceedings, but the Claimant did not inform the tribunal and still obtained an award against the Respondent, since this constituted a violation of the most fundamental principles of good faith in conducting the proceedings.

  239. 239.

    OLG Schleswig (30.03.2000, 16 SchH 5/99), RIW 2000, 706, para 54; Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1061 para 24; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 para 130; also see OLG Hamburg (30.07.1998, 6 Sch 3/98), NJW-RR 1999, 1738, para 24. Contra: Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 155, referring to Art. 31(II) of the UNCITRAL Model Law and the importance of giving reasons for the decision of a legal dispute for purposes of due process.

  240. 240.

    OLG Bremen (30.09.1999, 2 Sch 4/99), BB 1999, Beilage Nr. 50, 18, para 27; also cf OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, para 43.

  241. 241.

    OLG Hamburg (12.03.1998, 6 U 110/97), IPRspr 1999/178, 425, para 97; OLG Köln (23.03.2004, 9 Sch 1/03), SchiedsVZ 2005, 163, para 32; OLG Karlsruhe (27.03.2006, 9 Sch 2/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 335, para 16; OLG Thüringen (08.08.2007, 4 Sch 3/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 44, paras 21–22; OLG München (22.06.2009, 34 Sch 26/08), SchiedsVZ 2010, 169, para 46; OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47, paras 37–38, 81; OLG München (23.02.2007, 34 Sch 31/06), OLGR München 2007, 684, para 9; OLG München (14.11.2011, 34 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 43, paras 46. Cf BGH (15.07.1999, III ZB 21/98), BGHZ 142, 204 = NJW 1999, 2974, para 5 (arguing that a potentially erroneous interpretation of a contract by the arbitral tribunal will not give rise to a public-policy defense).

  242. 242.

    Also see Geimer, in: Zöller, ZPO, § 1061 para 40; Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 30 para 22.

  243. 243.

    OLG Bremen (30.09.1999, 2 Sch 4/99), BB 1999, Beilage Nr. 50, 18, para 29; OLG Düsseldorf (21.07.2004, VI-Sch (Kart) 1/02), IPRspr 2004/195, 443, para 25; Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 74, § 1063 para 8a; Kröll, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1061 paras 48, 113. Cf, regarding domestic awards, BGH (12.05.1958, VII ZR 436/56), BGHZ 27, 254 = NJW 1958, 1538; BGH (23.04.1959, VII ZR 2/58), BGHZ 30, 89 = NJW 1959, 1438; BGH (25.10.1966, KZR 7/65), BGHZ 46, 365 = NJW 1967, 1178, para 44; BGH (31.05.1972, KZR 43/71), NJW 1972, 2180, para 13. – The question was left undecided in OLG Hamm (27.09.2005, 29 Sch 1/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 107, para 32, as the court did not find any violation of public policy in any case.

  244. 244.

    OLG Saarbrücken (30.05.2011, 4 Sch 3/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 47.

  245. 245.

    Ibid, paras 37–47.

  246. 246.

    Ibid, paras 59–83.

  247. 247.

    Cf Solomon, AG 2006, 832–841.

  248. 248.

    This was the basis for the application for enforcement, for example, in OLG Dresden (31.01.2007, II Sch 18/05), SchiedsVZ 2007, 327, para 13 (US Claimant, Belarus Respondent with assets in Germany); OLG Rostock (28.10.1999, 1 Sch 3/99), BB 2000, Beilage Nr. 8, 20, para 31 (residence/place of buiness of parties not stated in published report; Respondent had assets, i.e. a ship, in Stralsund, Germany).

  249. 249.

    KG (18.05.2006, 20 Sch 13/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 100, para 15; OLG München (23.02.2007, 34 Sch 31/06), OLGR München 2007, 684, para 5.

  250. 250.

    KG (10.08.2006, 20 Sch 7/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 108. Case note: Pro: Escher/Reichert, SchiedsVZ 2007, 71–76.

  251. 251.

    In that respect, also cf OLG München (04.07.2011, 34 Sch 20/11), IPRspr 2011/303, 811.

  252. 252.

    KG (10.08.2006, 20 Sch 7/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 108, paras 86–87.

  253. 253.

    Ibid, paras 96–100.

  254. 254.

    Ibid, para 97.

  255. 255.

    Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 31 paras 6–7; Becker/Schartl, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1062 para 8.

  256. 256.

    Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, § 1062 para 3; Geimer, in: Zöller, ZPO, § 1062 para 3. – A similar result is reached by Münch, in: MünchKomm ZPO, § 1025 para 20, arguing that for a declaration of enforcement there is no need to establish international jurisdiction.

  257. 257.

    This approach was also advocated by Solomon, AG 2006, 837–840; also cf Voit, in: Musielak, ZPO, § 1062 para 4. Contra: Escher/Reichert, SchiedsVZ 2007, 76.

  258. 258.

    BGH (17.04.2008, III ZB 97/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 196, para 10; also cf Becker/Schartl, in: Böckstiegel et al (eds), Arbitration in Germany, § 1062 para 1.

  259. 259.

    BGH (17.04.2008, III ZB 97/06), SchiedsVZ 2008, 196, para 22.

  260. 260.

    KG (10.08.2006, 20 Sch 7/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 108, para 100. Accord: Escher/Reichert, SchiedsVZ 2007, 76. For a more restrictive approach with regard to limitations arising from national procedural law against the enforcement of a foreign award, see Schlosser, in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO, Anh. § 1061 para 63; Solomon, AG 2006, 840–841; also cf Kröll, SchiedsVZ 2009, 48.

  261. 261.

    OLG München (13.02.1995, 17 U 6591/93), OLGR München 1995, 57, paras 9, 14. Also cf OLG München (04.07.2011, 34 Sch 20/11), IPRspr 2011/303, 811, where the Respondent was the Kingdom of Thailand and the only property located in Germany was an airplane belonging to the Royal Thai Air Force at Munich airport. The OLG München considered that the airplane was not to be taken into account for jurisdictional purposes because of the transient nature of its presence in Germany and for reasons of sovereign immunity. It still transferred the case to the KG under ZPO § 1062(II), which implies that the lack of relevant property only precluded local jurisdiction of the Munich court, but not international jurisdiction of the German courts as such (and, consequently, the subsidiary local jurisdiction of the KG in Berlin). The transfer was accepted by KG (04.06.2012, 20 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2013, 112, para 58, reversed on other grounds by BGH (30.01.2013, III ZB 40/12), SchiedsVZ 2013, 110.

  262. 262.

    In that respect, before rejecting the application, the court will normally have to notify the Applicant of the insufficient documentation and determine an additional period of time for the Applicant to comply with the requirements; cf Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Ch. 27 para 7.

  263. 263.

    BGH (17.08.2000, III ZB 43/99), NJW 2000, 3650, paras 8–9; BGH (22.02.2001, III ZB 71/99), NJW 2001, 1730, paras 10–13; BGH (01.02.2001, III ZR 332/99), NJW-RR 2001, 1059, para 12; OLG Schleswig (15.07.2003, 16 Sch 1/03), SchiedsVZ 2003, 237, paras 8–12; BayObLG (22.11.2002, 4Z Sch 13/02), SchiedsVZ 2003, 142, para 46; OLG München (27.02.2009, 34 Sch 19/08), IPRspr 2009/273, 703, para 7; OLG Schleswig (15.05.2009, 16 Sch 1/09), SchiedsVZ 2010, 276, para 15; OLG München (11.07.2011, 34 Sch 15/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 337, para 29; OLG München (27.03.2013, 34 Sch 27/10), SchiedsVZ 2013, 179, para 16.

  264. 264.

    ZPO § 1064: “Particularities regarding the enforcement of awards.

    (1) At the time of the application for a declaration of enforceability of an arbitral award the award or a certified copy of the award shall be supplied. The certification may also be made by counsel authorised to represent the party in the judicial proceedings. […]”

  265. 265.

    BGH (25.09.2003, III ZB 68/02), SchiedsVZ 2003, 281, para 10, and case notes: Kröll, SchiedsVZ 2003, 282–284; Heidkamp, IHR 2004, 17–19; BayObLG (11.08.2000, 4Z Sch 5/00), BayObLGZ 2000, 233 = RIW 2001, 140, paras 20–23; BayObLG (05.07.2004, 4Z Sch 9/04), SchiedsVZ 2004, 316, no. 10; OLG München (28.11.2005, 34 Sch 19/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 111, para 17; OLG München (23.02.2007, 34 Sch 31/06), OLGR München 2007, 684, para 8; OLG München (27.02.2009, 34 Sch 19/08), IPRspr 2009/273, 703, paras 6–9; OLG München (11.05.2009, 34 Sch 23/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 343, para 8; OLG München (22.06.2009, 34 Sch 26/08), SchiedsVZ 2010, 169, para 30; OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 20; OLG München (14.11.2011, 34 Sch 10/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 43, para 36; OLG München (11.07.2011, 34 Sch 15/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 337, para 29; OLG München (11.04.2012, 34 Sch 21/11), SchiedsVZ 2012, 156, para 42; OLG München (21.06.2012, 34 Sch 4/12), SchiedsVZ 2012, 287, paras 13–14; OLG München (30.07.2012, 34 Sch 18/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 339, para 37; OLG München (19.11.2012, 34 Sch 7/11), SchiedsVZ 2013, 62, para 21; OLG München (27.03.2013, 34 Sch 27/10), SchiedsVZ 2013, 179, para 16; OLG Brandenburg (13.06.2002, 8 Sch 2/01), IPRax 2003, 349, paras 23–24; OLG Schleswig (15.07.2003, 16 Sch 1/03), SchiedsVZ 2003, 237, para 11; OLG Köln (23.03.2004, 9 Sch 1/03), SchiedsVZ 2005, 163, paras 17–19; OLG Hamm (27.09.2005, 29 Sch 1/05), SchiedsVZ 2006, 107, para 17; KG (10.08.2006, 20 Sch 7/04), SchiedsVZ 2007, 108, para 88; OLG Celle (31.05.2007, 8 Sch 6/06), IPRspr 2007/218, 614, para 26; OLG Karlsruhe (14.09.2007, 9 Sch 2/07), SchiedsVZ 2008, 47, para 13. – Contra: OLG Rostock (22.11.2001, 1 Sch 3/00), IPRax 2002, 401, paras 39–44, but see critical case note Kröll, IPRax 2002, 384–388. However, the same court had decided differently, following the majority view, in OLG Rostock (28.10.1999, 1 Sch 3/99), BB 2000, Beilage Nr. 8, 20, para 37, which was confirmed on appeal by BGH (22.02.2001, III ZB 71/99), NJW 2001, 1730, paras 10–13.

  266. 266.

    BGH (25.09.2003, III ZB 68/02), SchiedsVZ 2003, 281, para 10; BayObLG (11.08.2000, 4Z Sch 5/00), BayObLGZ 2000, 233 = RIW 2001, 140, para 23; OLG München (27.02.2009, 34 Sch 19/08), IPRspr 2009/273, 703, para 6; OLG München (11.05.2009, 34 Sch 23/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 343, para 8; OLG München (12.10.2009, 34 Sch 20/08), SchiedsVZ 2009, 340, para 20; OLG München (11.07.2011, 34 Sch 15/10), SchiedsVZ 2011, 337, para 30; OLG München (30.07.2012, 34 Sch 18/10), SchiedsVZ 2012, 339, para 37.

  267. 267.

    Cf, eg, Kröll, NJW 2011, 1271; Kühn, SchiedsVZ 2009, 60–61.

  268. 268.

    Cf van den Berg, New York Convention, 61–71; Wolff, in: Wolff (ed), New York Convention, Art. II paras 28–30.

  269. 269.

    See, eg, Kröll, SchiedsVZ 2009, 42.

  270. 270.

    Cf, eg, Kröll, SchiedsVZ 2009, 45–47; Kühn, SchiedsVZ 2009, 54–55.

  271. 271.

    Also see Kröll, SchiedsVZ 2009, 43.

  272. 272.

    See, eg, Kröll, SchiedsVZ 2009, 51.

  273. 273.

    Cf Glossner, SchiedsVZ 2009, 39; Kröll, SchiedsVZ 2009, 51.

REFERENCES

  • Böckstiegel, KH and Kröll, SM and Nacimiento, P (eds), Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice (Austin, Kluwer Law International, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, KH and Walter, G, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (7th edn, München, C.H. Beck et al, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, D, in: Balthasar (ed), International Commercial Arbitration (München, C.H. Beck et al, 2016), § 2, pp 45-157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, R (ed), New York Convention (München, C.H. Beck et al, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung, Juristische Fakultät, Universität Passau, Innstr. 39, 94032, Passau, Germany

    Dennis Solomon

Authors
  1. Dennis Solomon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Solomon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia Law School, New York, New York, USA

    George A. Bermann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Solomon, D. (2017). Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in Germany. In: Bermann, G. (eds) Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50915-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50915-0_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50913-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50915-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation