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 →
The Munich District Court (Landgericht München I) has issued, and the Munich Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht München) has confirmed in a judgment dated 12 December 2019 what appears to be Germany’s first anti-anti-suit injunction.
In the time-honoured tradition of German case reporting, the judgment is anonymized. However, read in conjunction with press reports and the reported US cases, it is clear that the injunction was issued for the benefit of Nokia of Finland against German automotive supplier Continental in the context of a patent war around connected cars and fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licenses. Continue reading →
“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.