GERMANY Law and Practice Contributed by: Daniel Engel, Antonia Hösch, Mathäus Mogendorf and Viola Sailer-Coceani, Hengeler Mueller
9.4 Grounds for Resisting Enforcement Foreign judgments may be resisted in Germany if enforcement would violate German public policy ( ordre public ) or if the defendant was not properly served. For EU judgments, these are the main grounds for refusal. For judgments from third countries, enforce- ment may additionally be refused if the foreign court lacked jurisdiction, if reciprocity is not established, or if there is a conflict with prior German judgments. Enforcement of arbitral awards may be refused on lim- ited grounds, including violation of public policy, non- arbitrability of the subject matter, denial of a party’s opportunity to be heard, or excess of the tribunal’s mandate. For ICSID awards, enforcement may only be refused if the award has been annulled or revised under the ICSID Convention. Germany does not have dedicated national legisla- tion governing the use of artificial intelligence in dis- pute resolution. The regulatory framework is instead shaped primarily at the European level. The EU AI Act, which entered into force on 1 August 2024 and will become fully applicable on 2 August 2026, establishes a risk-based regulatory regime encompassing system classification, conformity assessment, transparency obligations, and supervisory oversight. It should be noted, however, that the scope and requirements of the AI Act may be subject to modification through the proposed EU Omnibus Regulation, which could adjust certain obligations before full applicability takes effect. Additionally, policy and practice are guided by Coun- cil of Europe ethical guidelines and joint federal-state declarations on responsible AI use in the judiciary. Courts and lawyers are bound by the GDPR and pro- fessional conduct rules, supplemented by the German Federal Bar Association’s ( Bundesrechtsanwaltskam- mer ) dedicated guidance on artificial intelligence in law firms, which provides practical recommenda- tions for the responsible deployment of AI tools in legal practice. Case-related data may not be fed into external AI systems without a legal basis; and lawyers 10. Dispute Resolution and AI 10.1 Regulation
preclusive three-month time limit, whereas violations of fundamental principles, including non-arbitrability and public policy, must be examined ex officio. Foreign arbitral awards are enforced in accordance with the New York Convention, which is binding on Germany as a contracting state. Enforcement may be refused only on the limited grounds set out in the Convention. Jurisdiction lies with the higher regional court determined by the respondent’s domicile, habit- ual residence, or the location of assets in Germany. Where no such connecting factor exists, jurisdiction lies with the Higher Regional Court of Berlin ( Kammer- gericht ). German law constitutes a more favourable regime within the meaning of the Convention, as sub- mission of the arbitration agreement is not required, and a certified copy of the award suffices. Awards rendered under the ICSID Convention are enforced pursuant to the German Act Implementing the ICSID Convention ( Investitionsstreitbeilegungsge- setz ). In such cases, enforcement may only be denied where the award has been annulled or revised under the mechanisms provided by the ICSID Convention. However, the Federal Court of Justice recognised that, in intra-EU disputes, enforceability may be refused on the basis of the primacy of EU law. 9.3 Length of Time The duration of enforcement proceedings for foreign arbitral awards in Germany can vary depending on the complexity of the case and the mode of proceed- ings. Empirical data covering 573 enforcement and setting-aside decisions between 2012 and 2016 show a median duration per instance of around 3.5 months (109 days), with the mean duration being higher at approximately 5.75 months (173 days) due to outlier cases lasting several years. When appeals to the Fed- eral Court of Justice are included, the mean duration across all instances only increases to 6.14 months (187 days), reflecting the relative rarity of appellate review. The type of proceedings also significantly affects tim- ing: cases decided on the papers averaged about 4.6 months, while cases involving an oral hearing took over nine months on average.
244 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook