Analysis of the evolution of the objective arbitrability of the intra-corporate disputes over the shareholders’ resolutions in Germany
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/SIT.2017.005Keywords
corporate arbitration in Germany, DIS, the objective arbitrability, the arbitrability II decisionAbstract
The subject of this article is the thorough analysis of the evolution of the objective arbitrability of corporate disputes under German law. The German legal system, which was initially very opposite to any liberal approach towards arbitration, has lately undergone substantial changes which led to broad arbitrability of intra-corporate disputes regarding challenging the shareholder’s resolutions. The latest German liberal approach is the consequence of the widespread opinion that corporate arbitration constitutes the best alternative to mis7t and fossilized system of the regular courts. The aim of the article is to present the newest practical solutions as well as doctrinal controversies that still stand in a way of full recognition of the arbitration courts’ jurisdiction over the corporate disputes. This paper also deeply analyzes the role of the DIS (German Institution of Arbitration) as well as its corporate regulations DIS-SRCoLD (DIS Supplementary Rules for Corporate Law Disputes).
References
Baumbach A., Lauterbach W., Albers J., Hartmann P., Zivilprozessordnung, München 2007.
Berger K. P., The New German Arbitration Law in International Perspective, The Hague 2000.
Borris C., Die Ergänzenden Regeln für gesellschaftsrechtliche Streitigkeiten der DIS, Schieds VZ. Zeitschrift fur Schiedsverfahren, München 2009.
Bredow J., Arbitrating Shareholder Resolution Disputes in Germany: The New DIS-Supplementary Rules for Corporate Law Disputes (‘DIS-RCoLD’), w: Okolski J., Całus A., Pazdan M., Sołtysiński S., Wardyński T., Włodyka (red.), Księga pamiątkowa 60-lecia Sądu Arbitrażowego przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej, Warszawa 2010.
Budniak A., Charakter prawny oraz dopuszczalność zawarcia zapisu na sąd polubowny w prawie polskim i niemieckim, cz. II, „Rejent” 2008, nr 10.
Goette W., Habersack M., Münchener Kommentar zum Aktiengesetz, wyd. 3, München 2011.
Goette W., Neue Entscheiden des Bundesgerichtshofes, Beschlussmangelstreitigkeiten im GmbH-Recht sind schiedsfahig, GWR: Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht, München 2009.
Kidyba A., Kodeks spółek handlowych, t. II, Komentarz do art. 301–633 k.s.h., Warszawa 2017.
Kraayvanger J., Hilgard M.C., Arbitrability od Shareholders‘ Disputes under German Law, „International Litigation Quaerely”, Fall 2009, Vol. 26, Issue 1.
Lew J. D. M., Mistelis L. A., Kröll S. M. (red.), Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, The Hague–London New York 2003.
Mehrbrey K. L., Handbuch Gesellschaftsrechtliche Streitigkeiten, Köln 2013.Pörnbacher K., Dolgorukow A., Zdatność arbitrażowa sporów korporacyjnych (o zaskarżanie uchwał) – perspektywa niemiecka, „Przegląd Prawa Handlowego” 2015, nr 10.
Raeschke-Kessler H., w: M. Habersack, P. HommelhoD, Festschrift für Wulf Goette zum 65. Geburtstag, München 2011.
Saenger I, Schiedsvereinbarung, w: Zivilprozessordnung. Handkommentar, red. I. Saenger, Baden-Baden 2000.
Schwedt K., Die praktische Umsetzung der BGH-Urteile Schiedsfähigkeit I und II, Schieds VZ. Zeitschrift fur Schiedsverfahren, München 2010.
Wiśniewski A. M., Międzynarodowy arbitraż handlowy w Polsce, status prawny arbitrażu i arbitrów, Warszawa 2011.
WolD R., Is Article 2a (1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration “Useful and Desirable” or Just Futile?, “Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration” 2014.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 591
Number of citations: 0
