UPDATE: Shortly after this post went online Türkgücü published the judgment of the District Court (Landgericht) Munich dated 30 September 2020 and the arbitral award of the Bavarian Football Association’s arbitral tribunal dated 27 October 2020 on its website. The decisions can be found here and here. In the original post, I stated the 2019/2020 season of the Bavarian Regional League had been abandoned. This is not correct – the season was only suspended and is currently continuing as the 2019/2021 season (with my hometown club, Viktoria Aschaffenburg, currently leading the league and Türkgücu still being shown in the table). I have corrected this and added the correct dates.
Finally, a decision of the Munich Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht) – and thus the fourth decision-making body after the District Court Munich, the Bavarian Supreme Court (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht) and the arbitral tribunal – brought the injunctive proceedings before the state courts to an end for the time being. Continue reading →
As if Schalke 04 did not have enough problems as it is this season, given their current standing in the Bundesliga, the club through no fault of their own could not play their first-round match in the German Cup. Schalke fell victim to a dispute between two Bavarian clubs, fourth-division side Schweinfurt 05, and newly promoted third-division club Türkgücü Munich. The Bavarian Football Association (Bayerischer Fussballverband, BFV) nominated Schweinfurt 05 for of the 2020/2021 Cup season. However, Türkgücü felt that they should have been nominated, and obtained an injunction in the Munich courts, which prevented the match between Schweinfurt 05 and Schalke 04 to be played as scheduled on 13 September 2020.
In commercial life, from time to time conflicts arise that require prompt action to avoid irrevocable harm. For instance, imagine a scenario where a business agreed on a non-compete clause with a former business partner. A violation of this non-compete clause would pose an immediate danger to the business, requiring prompt enforcement.
Traditionally, most state courts offer injunctions in such circumstances. However, in the commercial world today, parties often opt for an arbitration clause for reasons such as confidentiality. How does one uphold these arbitration agreements as well as seek urgent relief?
The answer is the emergency arbitrator. In the last 14 years, most large arbitral institutions around the world, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) have introduced the emergency arbitrator as a tool in their toolbox to deal with such urgent cases. Continue reading →
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 →