German Chamber of Commerce and Industry establishes arbitration institution
Published on 17th March 2025
The DIHK Arbitration Court offers digital case management and a procedure loosely based on German judicial practice, positioning itself as an accessible alternative to state courts
On 9 December 2024, the Arbitration Court (Schiedsgerichtshof, SGH) of the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) officially commenced operations, representing an expansion of dispute resolution services in Germany.
Historically, the DIHK and its regional and international chambers (IHKs and AHKs) administered arbitrations under the patronage of the German Arbitration Institute (DIS). The creation of the SGH marks the transition toward independent arbitration administration under distinct institutional rules, the SGH Rules. This development broadens the dispute resolution landscape in Germany, positioning the SGH as competition to established arbitration institutions.
Digital arbitration and case management
A central factor of the SGH is its explicit emphasis on digital arbitration. The institution actively promotes a fully digital arbitration process, from initial case submission to the issuance of the arbitral award. This emphasis aligns with broader global trends toward digitalisation in arbitration, accelerated by the experience gained during the Covid-19 pandemic. To operationalise this digital approach, the SGH provides parties with a Case Management Platform (Verfahrensmanagementplattform, VMP), accessible through the institution's website.
The VMP enables comprehensive electronic management of arbitration proceedings, facilitating the digital submission of written submissions and supporting documents. The integration of this digital tool is intended to enhance procedural efficiency, reduce administrative burden, and provide greater transparency in the conduct of arbitral proceedings.
An especially notable feature is the SGH’s introduction of an interactive "base document" (Basisdokument). This tool supports parties in structuring their submissions, and aiding arbitrators in identifying core issues early in the proceedings. The concept reflects ongoing discussions within German civil litigation regarding structured party submissions (strukturierter Parteivortrag), highlighting the SGH’s intent to leverage familiar procedural concepts to appeal particularly to parties accustomed to German judicial practice.
Procedural powers and case efficiency
The SGH Rules grant arbitrators significant procedural authority, including the power to actively structure and streamline cases, restrict submissions, and provide preliminary assessments of factual or legal issues independent of party consent.
This proactive role is indicative of procedural approaches rooted in German judicial tradition, particularly the judge-driven management style typical of German courts. These procedural dynamics, however, may initially challenge arbitrators and practitioners familiar predominantly with traditional international arbitration practice.
Unlike traditional international arbitration practice that places significant emphasis on party autonomy and a comparatively passive tribunal role, the SGH approach grants arbitrators more direct intervention powers. It will therefore be critical for the SGH to provide adequate guidance and training to arbitrators and parties unfamiliar or uncomfortable with such active procedural management to ensure predictability and confidence in the arbitration process.
Institutional governance and quality assurance
The governance structure of the SGH reflects an effort to ensure procedural quality and institutional transparency. The DIHK has implemented a multi-tier governance model comprising a supervisory board and specialised committees responsible for overseeing operational practices and quality assurance. Effective governance will be essential to building trust in the SGH, influencing how the institution is perceived domestically and internationally.
The success of this governance model will depend significantly on its practical implementation. Clear delineation of responsibilities, transparent decision-making and responsiveness to stakeholder feedback will be pivotal. Robust governance mechanisms could position the SGH as a credible alternative to other institutions, provided that decisions and oversight practices consistently meet user expectations in terms of procedural fairness and institutional accountability.
Osborne Clarke comment
The establishment of the SGH introduces additional competition into the German arbitration market. The SGH’s explicit alignment with principles familiar to German civil procedure could make arbitration more accessible and appealing particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) previously hesitant to engage in arbitration due to concerns over complexity and costs. SMEs may appreciate the simplified procedural approach, digital access and enhanced transparency offered by the SGH.
Nonetheless, the institution's ultimate success will depend on its performance in practice. While the digital and procedural innovations presented by the SGH are promising, these features must translate effectively into demonstrable efficiency gains, cost reductions and procedural predictability to attract sustained user interest. Early cases will serve as important tests of whether the SGH's procedural mechanisms and governance model deliver the practical benefits envisaged.
The extent to which the SGH succeeds will depend on its ability to effectively implement these innovative features and to foster confidence among users—particularly SMEs and domestic parties—through robust governance, clear procedural management, and demonstrable improvements over arbitration with more established institutions. As it builds its case record, ongoing evaluation and stakeholder engagement will be essential in shaping its trajectory and determining its long-term impact on arbitration practice in Germany.
