Modernization of Arbitration Law in 2026: What the Draft Bill on the Code of Civil Procedure Aims to Change for Arbitration Proceedings in Germany

More than 25 years after the last fundamental reform, German arbitration law is poised for its next step toward modernization. The draft bill aims to adapt the law to today’s needs, increase its efficiency, and strengthen Germany’s appeal as an arbitration venue. We provide an overview of the most important reform points and explain what the changes mean for practice.

Key changes and their implications:

Technology-neutral formal requirements for the conclusion of an arbitration agreement

A key change concerns the formal requirements for an arbitration agreement. Under current law, the following formal requirement applies: The arbitration agreement must either be contained in a document signed by the parties or must result from exchanges of declarations between them that verifiably document the conclusion of the agreement. 

The draft proposes to eliminate the requirement for “exchanged declarations” in the future. Thus, an arbitration agreement should be able to be concluded or documented in writing or through any other means of communication that allows the information to be accessed later. As a result, oral or implied agreements should also be valid, provided their content is appropriately documented. 

Previously, an arbitration agreement was invalid if, for example, a company submitted a written purchase offer containing an arbitration clause and the other party tacitly accepted this offer merely by delivering the goods. This is now set to change: In the future, it will suffice for the arbitration agreement to be recorded in any form; in such a case, the clause would thus be valid.

Digitalization

In the future, the law will permit oral hearings to be conducted via videoconference, as well as the electronic drafting of arbitral awards and their affixing with a qualified electronic signature. This eliminates, on the one hand, the previous requirement for the arbitral award issued by the arbitrator to bear a personal and handwritten signature, and on the other hand, it removes all doubts regarding the admissibility of online hearings already in practice. 

In the future, it should also be possible to submit the electronically issued award to courts in electronic form as part of the declaration of enforceability.

Overall, these new provisions are likely to help expedite proceedings, reduce organizational burdens, and increase flexibility, particularly in the case of internationally composed arbitral tribunals.

Language Requirements 

International arbitration proceedings are regularly conducted in English. Under the law currently in force, however, arbitration-related proceedings before the Higher Regional Courts must generally be conducted in German. English-language documents must therefore be translated. This represents a significant burden that makes the proceedings costly for the parties. Proceedings before the state courts are consequently significantly delayed.

The law now aims to address this issue. The draft provides that English-language pleadings and exhibits from arbitration proceedings may be submitted to Higher Regional Courts without translation. The courts, however, retain the option to order a translation if necessary. 

In addition, under certain conditions, annulment, recognition, and enforcement proceedings are to be conducted entirely in English before special state courts (so-called Commercial Courts). However, there is still one important limitation: if the allocation of jurisdiction remains unchanged, arbitration cases in Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia would still not be able to be heard in English in the future. This is because these states do not assign arbitration cases to the Commercial Court.

Publication of Arbitration Awards 

Under current law, arbitral awards are subject to strict confidentiality. However, this poses a disadvantage in legal practice: since decisions are generally not published, there is a lack of accessible precedents that could assist in the legal assessment and prediction of litigation risk. The result is a certain degree of legal uncertainty in complex disputes. 

The proposed reform now provides for a separate legal basis for the publication of arbitral awards. Under this provision, arbitral awards may be published in the future unless the parties expressly object. A prerequisite for this is the anonymization or pseudonymization of the decision.

The aim of this provision is to promote transparency and the further development of arbitration law without unduly compromising the parties’ legitimate confidentiality interests.

In conjunction with this, the reform proposal provides that decisions of the Commercial Courts are to be published on a mandatory basis in the future pursuant to a procedure specified in § 1062(1) German Civil Procedure Code. This should make case law on arbitration issues even more accessible and enhance the predictability of judicial decisions.

Dissenting Opinions

Whether arbitrators may record their dissenting views in the form of a dissenting opinion has long been a matter of controversy in German arbitration law. In particular, there has been debate over whether a dissenting opinion violates the duty of confidentiality.

The draft reform now seeks to provide explicit legal clarification: dissenting opinions are to be permitted in the future. The explanatory memorandum in the draft bill does not view this as a violation of the confidentiality of deliberations. An “opt-out” provision is envisaged, under which a dissenting opinion is generally permissible unless the parties have excluded it. 

This aligns with international practice and creates transparency for proceedings involving international participation.

Interim Measures and Their Enforcement

The draft reform also modernizes key aspects of interim relief in arbitration proceedings. On the one hand, the requirements for the recognition and enforcement of interim measures issued by foreign arbitral tribunals in Germany are explicitly regulated. On the other hand, the procedure for declaring domestic arbitral interim measures enforceable is revised. 

Whereas the state court has previously made a discretionary decision on enforcement, the draft provides for a binding decision in the future. The court may refuse enforcement in the future only on four grounds: (1) if there are fundamental procedural defects, such as an invalid arbitration agreement or a violation of the right to a fair hearing; (2) if the same interim relief proceedings are already pending before a German court; (3) if security required by the arbitral tribunal has not been provided; or (4) if the arbitral tribunal has since set aside the measure itself. There is no longer any leeway outside this list. The court’s previous discretion is completely eliminated.

This amendment systematizes judicial review and significantly increases the predictability of judicial decisions. This is to be welcomed, as the current discretionary framework means that the outcome is often difficult for the parties to predict. 

Overall, the new regulation represents an important step toward greater legal certainty and international compatibility. The stronger focus on clearly defined grounds for denial also increases the predictability of judicial decisions and strengthens the effective enforceability of interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunals.

New Remedy Against Arbitral Awards: The Claim for Restitution

Because the deadline for setting aside an arbitral award expires after just three months, the only available remedy is a claim for damages under § 826 BGB. In practice, however, this instrument presents a high hurdle and is virtually impossible for foreign legal practitioners to locate.

The draft bill creates, for the first time, a separate legal remedy: the so-called claim for restitution against arbitral awards. This makes it possible to have a final arbitral award set aside by a court even after the statutory deadline has expired. 

However, this requires particularly serious grounds. The following grounds justify setting aside the award: (1) forged documents on which the award is based; (2) criminal perjury by witnesses or experts on which the award is based; (3) awards obtained through criminal acts; (4) the participation in the award of an arbitrator who has committed a criminal breach of duty in relation to the arbitration proceedings; (5) a judgment of a court or arbitral tribunal on which the award is based has been legally and definitively set aside. The following grounds are also covered: (6) A party discovers or gains access for the first time to a judgment or arbitral award that had previously become final in the same matter; (7) A party discovers or gains access for the first time to another document that would have led to a decision more favorable to it. An additional requirement for cases 1 through 4 is generally that a final conviction has been issued.

The application must be filed within a strict one-month deadline from the date of becoming aware of the grounds for restitution and is barred after five years have elapsed from the date the arbitral award became final. Germany is thus following the example of Austria and Switzerland, which already have comparable legal remedies in place.

For companies, this means: If the regulation becomes law as intended, they must expect in the future that even a concluded arbitration proceeding can, under certain circumstances, be reopened up to five years after the arbitral award becomes final. The definitive planning certainty that an arbitral award previously offered is thus relativized in (admittedly only very limited and rare) individual cases.

Conclusion

The first reform of arbitration law in more than 25 years is a step in the right direction: electronic awards, English-language proceedings, and clearer rules for interim relief can significantly enhance Germany’s international reputation as an arbitration venue. The inclusion of grounds for restitution could also contribute to an improvement, especially since such legal remedies already exist in other countries, such as Austria and Switzerland.