Reform of German Arbitration Law

Where the arbitration law reform stands in November 2026

Germany's arbitration law reform is in parliament. On 10 June 2026 the Federal Cabinet adopted the government bill to modernise arbitration law, and the bill was introduced to the Bundestag as Bundestag document 21/8414 dated 7 October 2026. The Bundestag held the first reading on 16 October 2026 and referred the bill to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Consumer Protection, according to the Bundestag's report of the debate. As at the date of this note, the bill has not been adopted, and its content may still change in committee. The bill provides that the law would enter into force on the day after promulgation.

The reform targets the tenth book of the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO), §§ 1025–1066, which has been based on the UNCITRAL Model Law since 1998. A similar bill was presented in the previous legislative period but lapsed when the Bundestag's term ended early in 2025. The new bill takes up most of its elements and links them to the Commercial Courts created by the Judiciary Strengthening Act (Justizstandort-Stärkungsgesetz), which entered into force on 1 April 2025.

The government describes the changes as targeted adjustments, not a rewrite: the 1998 framework is considered to have worked well. The explanatory memorandum points to three drivers for the arbitration law reform — the 2006 revision of the UNCITRAL Model Law, reforms of arbitration laws in neighbouring European countries and of institutional rules, and the digitalisation of procedure — and estimates that businesses would save compliance costs as a result.

Key elements of the arbitration law reform

The bill contains a dozen changes of practical importance. The table summarises the most relevant ones as drafted in Bundestag document 21/8414.

Form, digital proceedings and electronic awards

Easier form for arbitration agreements

Under current § 1031 ZPO, arbitration agreements must meet specific written form requirements, which can create uncertainty where agreements are concluded by email exchange, via an online platform or by reference to general terms. The reform would allow an arbitration agreement to be concluded or documented "in writing or by any other means of communication that makes it possible to access the information later". This follows the approach of the 2006 revision of the UNCITRAL Model Law and reduces the risk that an award is attacked because of a formal defect in the agreement. The bill's transitional provision preserves the effectiveness of agreements concluded before the reform enters into force.

Video hearings and electronic awards

The bill expressly allows video hearings, after hearing the parties and subject to contrary agreement (§ 1047(2) ZPO-E). Awards could be issued electronically if no party objects, in an electronic document stating the names of all arbitrators and bearing their qualified or advanced electronic signatures (§ 1054(1) ZPO-E). In multi-member tribunals the signatures of a majority would suffice if the reason for a missing signature is stated, and any party could request a paper version after receiving an electronic award. For enforcement, transmitting the electronic award as an electronic document would be sufficient (§ 1064(1) ZPO-E).

Transparency: dissenting opinions and publication

Two changes respond to international practice. Dissenting opinions are already common in international arbitration, but their admissibility in German-seated proceedings has occasionally been questioned. Under § 1054a ZPO-E, an arbitrator may record a dissenting opinion on the award or its reasoning unless the parties agree otherwise; the dissent is not part of the award, must be signed and should be announced to the other arbitrators as early as the deliberations allow.

On publication, § 1054b ZPO-E would allow the tribunal, with the parties' consent, to publish the award and any dissent in whole or in part in anonymised or pseudonymised form. Consent is deemed given if a party does not object within three months after receiving a request, provided it was informed of that consequence. Parties can contract out. Court decisions in setting-aside and enforcement proceedings before Commercial Courts would have to be published. For companies that value confidentiality, the key point is the deemed consent: the arbitration agreement or terms of reference should address publication if it is unwanted.

Interim measures, jurisdiction and remedies against awards

Enforcing interim measures

Under current § 1041(2) ZPO, a court "may" permit the enforcement of interim measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal. The reform would oblige the court to grant permission on application unless specific grounds exist: a ground for setting aside under § 1059(2) applied by analogy, a corresponding application to a domestic court, failure to provide security ordered by the tribunal, or the tribunal having lifted or suspended the measure. The court could make permission subject to security. The rules would also apply to interim measures of tribunals seated abroad (§ 1025(2) ZPO-E).

Negative jurisdiction decisions and restitution

Where a tribunal declines jurisdiction by award, a new § 1040(4) ZPO-E would make clear that the award can be set aside under § 1059 if the applicant credibly argues that the tribunal wrongly considered itself incompetent. This addresses a gap that has troubled practitioners for years.

A new restitution remedy (§ 1059a ZPO-E) would allow an award to be set aside after the three-month deadline of § 1059(3) has expired, on narrow grounds modelled on the ZPO's restitution action, such as forged documents, criminal false testimony or a prior conflicting judgment. The application would have to be made within one month of knowledge and not later than five years after the award became final. See our insight on setting aside arbitral awards under § 1059 ZPO.

Multi-party appointments and court support

The bill clarifies that co-claimants or co-respondents must appoint their arbitrator jointly unless agreed otherwise; if they fail to do so within one month, the court can appoint the arbitrator and, to preserve equality, also the arbitrator of the other side (§ 1035(4) ZPO-E). Applications to the court to determine whether arbitration is admissible would also allow a decision on the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement.

English-language court proceedings in arbitration matters

The most visible change for international users concerns state court support. Under § 1063a ZPO-E, proceedings under § 1062(1) ZPO — for example on the appointment or challenge of arbitrators, setting aside and enforcement — would be conducted entirely in English before a Commercial Court where the state has opened that court to English proceedings for the relevant subject matter and the parties have agreed on English or the represented respondent responds in English without objection.

States could extend this to Higher Regional Courts without a Commercial Court. English-language documents connected with the arbitration could be submitted without translation in German-language proceedings, and translations could be ordered only where needed in the individual case (§ 1063b ZPO-E). Appeals on points of law to the Federal Court of Justice could be conducted in English on application and with the court's consent (§ 1065(3) ZPO-E).

States would also be able to assign arbitration-related court matters to Commercial Courts (§ 1062(6) ZPO-E). See our pages on Commercial Courts and on international arbitration.

Other changes in the bill

The bill also contains two changes outside arbitration. It would align the rule on the capacity of foreign nationals to conduct litigation (§ 55 ZPO) with the conflict-of-laws rule on legal capacity, which since 2023 looks to habitual residence rather than nationality. And it would allow courts in other EU Member States to serve judicial documents electronically and directly on recipients in Germany, implementing Article 19(1) of the recast Service Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 (§ 1068 ZPO-E). For businesses involved in cross-border litigation, the latter could noticeably speed up service from other Member States; see our insight on cross-border litigation, service and evidence.

What the arbitration law reform means for businesses

For companies using arbitration, the arbitration law reform is evolutionary. It removes formal pitfalls, provides a statutory footing for digital practice and strengthens Germany's position as a seat against competitors that have already modernised their laws. Practical steps for in-house teams include:

1. checking whether existing clauses or rules already deal with dissenting opinions and publication, and deciding whether to keep the new defaults;
2. reviewing how arbitration agreements are concluded in practice, for example through online terms, so that the new form rule can be relied on after commencement;
3. considering German seats with Commercial Courts in the relevant state when English-language court support is important;
4. monitoring the committee stage, because details — in particular transitional rules and publication — may change before adoption.

The DIS Arbitration Rules remain unaffected by the bill; see our insight on the DIS Arbitration Rules.

How TRW & Co helps with arbitration law reform questions

We advise companies on drafting and reviewing arbitration agreements, on choosing seats and rules, and on arbitration-related court proceedings in Germany, including setting aside, enforcement and interim measures. As the arbitration law reform progresses, we help clients assess whether their clauses need adjusting — for example on publication, dissenting opinions or electronic awards — and how to use English-language proceedings before the Commercial Courts once available. We track the bill's progress in the Bundestag and update our guidance as the text changes. To discuss your arbitration clauses or a pending matter, please contact us.