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
In this blog, we have dealt with sports arbitration in general, and the Munich Pechstein case in particular, on several occasions. This week, the most recent issue of the German Arbitration Journal (Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren) landed on my desk. It has two articles discussing the Pechstein case, which you might find of interest.
Christian Duve and Karl Ömer Rösch take a somewhat critical view of the decision of the Munich Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht). They argue that, as part of a public policy (ordre public) analysis, the anti-trust law could have been into account, however, in their view, the public policy would not have been violated. In a second article, Peter Heermann also discusses the Munich decision. In addition, he looks into the future, discussing the German draft anti doping legislation, that addresses sports arbitration. Here are the English language abstracts for the respective articles: Continue reading
German law requires notarial form for many commercial transactions, in particular for real estate contracts and the sale and transfer of GmbH Shares. Thus, a decision by the Munich Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht München) on challenges to an arbitration agreement based on the lack of notarial form is of great practical relevance.
The Munich Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht) has held that a Russian Arbitrazh Court (Arbitragegericht, in the German original) is a state court, and not an arbitral tribunal. As a result, the application to the Munich court to recognize and enforce the Arbitrazh court’s judgment as a foreign arbitration award pursuant to Sec. 1061 German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) and the New York Convention was denied. Continue reading