An arbitral tribunal may affirm its jurisdiction only on the basis of a valid arbitration agreement. In the absence of such an agreement, the tribunal lacks jurisdiction and the dispute may ordinarily be brought before the state courts.

Arbitration proceedings may either be administered by a permanent arbitral institution or organised by the parties on an ad hoc basis.

Under § 1044 (1) ZPO, arbitral proceedings are commenced when the respondent receives a statement of claim identifying the parties, stating the subject matter of the dispute and referring to the arbitration agreement. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, § 1044 (2) ZPO requires the claimant to set out the facts and circumstances giving rise to the claim and the relief sought. Receipt of the statement of claim suspends the limitation period under § 204(1) sentence 1 no. 11 BGB in conjunction with § 1044 ZPO.

The parties may determine the number of arbitrators; failing agreement, the tribunal consists of three arbitrators (§ 1034(1) sentence 2 ZPO). An arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality or independence, or if the arbitrator lacks qualifications agreed by the parties (§ 1036(2)). In a three-member tribunal, each party appoints one arbitrator and the two party-appointed arbitrators appoint the presiding arbitrator (§ 1035(3)). If the appointment procedure fails, the competent Higher Regional Court makes the appointment upon request by a party (§§ 1035(5), 1062(1) no. 1 ZPO).

As a practical matter, the claimant should have the relevant contracts, authorisations and principal supporting documents available. The ZPO does not, however, generally require all evidence to be filed with the initial statement of claim.

In DIS proceedings, administrative fees and advances on the arbitrators’ fees and expenses are generally required under the DIS Arbitration Rules. In ad hoc proceedings, the requirement and amount of any advance depend on the parties’ agreement and the tribunal’s arrangements. It is therefore more accurate to state that advances on costs are common in practice, but are not a uniform statutory prerequisite for every arbitration seated in Germany.

The parties may agree on the seat and the language of the arbitration (§§ 1043, 1045 ZPO). Where the seat is in Germany, Book 10 of the ZPO applies in principle (§ 1025(1) ZPO). The seat determines the lex arbitri, whereas the language of the proceedings is a separate procedural question.

Under § 1047(1) ZPO, unless the parties agree otherwise, the tribunal decides whether to hold oral hearings or to proceed on the basis of documents. If a party so requests at an appropriate stage and the parties have not excluded an oral hearing, the tribunal must hold one. The tribunal has no coercive powers of its own. Under § 1050 ZPO, the tribunal, or a party with the tribunal’s approval, may request court assistance with evidentiary measures that the tribunal is not authorised to take. The competent local court applies its own procedural law and may reject an inadmissible request. Broad US-style discovery is not part of German civil procedure, although targeted and dispute-related document production may be ordered in appropriate cases.

The award must in principle be made in writing, state its reasons and be signed by the arbitrator or arbitrators (§ 1054 ZPO). Between the parties, a final award has the same effect as a final court judgment (§ 1055 ZPO). Unless the parties agree otherwise, an award in proceedings with more than one arbitrator is made by a majority of all members of the tribunal (§ 1052(1) ZPO).

If the parties settle the dispute during the arbitration, the tribunal may, at the parties’ request, record the settlement in an award on agreed terms under § 1053 (1) ZPO, provided that its content is not contrary to public policy. Such an award has the same effect as any other award under § 1053 (2) ZPO and need not state reasons under § 1054 (2) ZPO. Subject to the applicable requirements, it may also be enforced abroad under the New York Convention. Alternatively, the parties may conclude an ordinary settlement and terminate the proceedings under § 1056(2) no. 2 ZPO; such a settlement is not, in itself, an enforceable award.

An application to set aside an award under § 1059 ZPO is generally the sole recourse against the award before the courts. The application is heard by the competent Higher Regional Court (§ 1062(1) no. 4 ZPO). The grounds are exhaustive and include an invalid arbitration agreement or a party’s incapacity, lack of proper notice or inability to present one’s case, an award exceeding the scope of the submission or the arbitration agreement, defects in the composition of the tribunal or in the procedure, non-arbitrability of the dispute, and conflict with public policy (§ 1059(2) ZPO). The court does not review the merits. An appeal on points of law to the Federal Court of Justice is available only within the limits of § 1065 ZPO and does not constitute a second full review.

A domestic award may be enforced in Germany only after the competent Higher Regional Court has declared it enforceable (§ 1060 (1) ZPO). Once final or declared provisionally enforceable, that declaration constitutes an enforcement title within the meaning of § 794(1) no. 4a ZPO. In the declaration proceedings, the court examines the grounds listed in § 1059 ZPO subject to the applicable procedural rules.

It should also be noted that the German Federal Ministry of Justice published a revised ministerial draft bill to modernise German arbitration law on 27 January 2026. As of 20 July 2026, the draft had not yet been enacted.