“may refuse to accept the document to be served at the time of service or by returning the document to the receiving agency within one week if it is not written in, or accompanied by a translation into, either of the following languages: (a) a language which the addressee understands; or (b) the official language of the Member State addressed or, if there are several official languages in that Member State, the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected.” Continue reading →
In arbitral proceedings, the jurisdiction of the state courts is limited (Section 1026 Code of Civil Procedure; Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO). On the one hand, while the arbitral proceedings are ongoing, the courts have powers to assist during the arbitral proceedings by deciding on the appointment and the challenge of arbitrators (Sec 1035 to 1039 ZPO). They can also to step in where the arbitral tribunal lacks jurisdiction and support the taking of evidence (Section 1050 ZPO). On the other hand, the state courts are competent to review the legality of the arbitral proceedings and the award once the proceedings have been concluded (Section 1059 ZPO).
The issue before the Munich Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht)earlier this year was whether a dispute between parties to an arbitration about the effectiveness of an arbitrator’s appointment can be decided during the arbitral proceedings on the basis of Sec 1035 para. 4 ZPO, or whether such a decision has to wait until the arbitral proceedings have been concluded and an award has been made.
The revolution in sports arbitration has been called off, at least for now: Today, the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) reversed the much discussed judgment of the Munich Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht) in the case of Claudia Pechstein. Pechstein, the speed skater and five-time Olympic gold medalist, had sued the governing body of her sport, the International Skating Union (ISU) for damages suffered as a result of a doping ban Pechstein believes to be unlawful.The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the action was inadmissible in light of the arbitration agreement between the athlete and the ISU. Continue reading →