To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that a German court has gone on the record on the issue of dissenting opinions in arbitration: The Frankfurt Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht) has taken the view that the publication of a dissenting opinion by the minority arbitrator violates the procedural ordre public, thus constituting a reason to set aside the arbitral award pursuant to Section 1059 para. 2 no 2 b) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO). I discuss the decision in detail in a post at the Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Here’s the summary: Continue reading
Anyone summoned by a state court to be heard as a witness is in principle obliged to appear and testify (Section 380, 395 et seq. Code of Civil Procedure ZPO) and the courts can enforce that obligation. Things are different, however, in arbitration: There is no duty to appear before an arbitral tribunal. Continue reading
My colleagues Nick Storrs and Michael Wietzorek look at the EU memberstates’ exit from bi-lateral investment treaties (BITs) in the wake of the Achmea decision of the European Court of Justice. This case had several appearances on this blog, as it made its way from the Frankfurt Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht) and the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) to the European Court of Justice, first under its original name, Slovakia v. Eureko.
The disruption to business caused by the corona virus will inevitably leads to disputes. Examples that come to mind are the late supply or the failure to deliver critical supplies in an international supply chain, and the allocation of unforeseen risks and costs. Other questions might concern material adverse change (MAC) or force majeure provisions and insurance coverage for Corona-related issues. In most cases, going to court is not really an option, given the urgency involved in finding a solution. Continue reading