Germany’s ongoing arbitration reform: what manufacturers should know about the latest proposals

In January 2026, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection published a new ministerial draft bill (Referentenentwurf) aimed at modernising Germany’s arbitration law. This is not the first attempt at reform. Earlier drafts, including a white paper in 2023 and an earlier ministerial draft bill and governmental draft bill (Regierungsentwurf) in 2024, were accompanied by consultations and a public hearing but ultimately did not make it through the legislative process before the end of the last parliamentary term. The attempts at reform have now been revived, with a revised ministerial draft bill that reflects feedback from those earlier consultations.

There are four aspects of the draft bill that are most likely to matter in practice in disputes arising out of international supply chains: getting the arbitration clause right, avoiding deadlock at the tribunal appointment stage, interim relief, and English-language proceedings.

Getting the arbitration clause right 

The draft updates the wording of the form requirement for arbitration agreements. Instead of referring to specific forms of communication such as letters, faxes or telegrams, as the current law does, it now provides that an arbitration agreement must be concluded or documented in writing, or by any other means of communication that allows the information to be accessed at a later stage. Compared with earlier versions of the reform project, which contemplated removing the form requirement altogether, the current draft adopts a more limited update of the existing rule.

The modernised wording on the form of arbitration agreements responds to the reality that even sophisticated contracts are rarely concluded by wet-ink signature. Framework agreements, purchase orders, order confirmations and platform-based contracting all create layered documentation trails. By shifting away from an outdated list of communication methods and focusing instead on whether the agreement is recorded in a form that can be accessed at a later stage, the draft reduces the risk of technical arguments about whether an arbitration agreement exists in the first place.

The practical message remains unchanged: arbitration agreements still need to be clearly and consistently documented, particularly where framework agreements are implemented through purchase orders or where multiple group companies or tiers of suppliers are involved.

Multi-party disputes: avoiding deadlock at the tribunal appointment stage

The draft provides that where more than two parties are involved on the same side of a dispute and have jointly agreed to appoint an arbitrator, but fail to do so within a specified period, any of those parties may request court intervention to appoint that arbitrator on their behalf.

Supply chain disputes often do not fit a neat bilateral pattern: they may involve several suppliers, subcontractors, logistics providers, or different entities within the same corporate group. Where multiple claimants or respondents are on one side of the dispute, agreeing on a joint arbitrator can become a bottleneck and delay the constitution of the tribunal.

The new rule reduces the risk that a case stalls at the very outset and provides a clearer baseline where parties have not opted into more detailed institutional rules or provided for a bespoke appointment mechanism in their contracts. 

Interim relief: making tribunal orders bite, not just bark

The draft provides that interim measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal must be declared enforceable by a state court upon application, unless one of a limited number of statutory refusal grounds applies. Those grounds include: the existence of parallel court proceedings, failure to provide security ordered by the tribunal, or the lifting or suspension of the measure by the tribunal itself.

The court may adapt the wording of the measure if necessary to make enforcement possible and may also make enforcement conditional on the provision of security. Under the current law, courts have discretion as to whether to enforce interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunals.

For manufacturers operating in complex and often time-critical supply chains, interim relief is often as commercially decisive as the final award. Disputes about ongoing deliveries, alleged quality defects, intellectual property, payment holds, or the preservation of goods and evidence frequently require immediate intervention. In these situations, what matters in practice is not just whether a tribunal can order interim measures, but whether those measures can be enforced quickly and effectively.

By strengthening the enforceability of tribunal-ordered interim relief, the draft reduces the need for parties to turn to parallel court proceedings simply to make urgent measures effective and reinforces the arbitral tribunal’s role as the central forum for managing the dispute from an early stage.

English-language court proceedings: lowering the barrier to choosing Germany as a seat

The draft allows Germany’s federal states (Länder) to channel certain arbitration-related court proceedings to specialised commercial courts at the level of the Higher Regional Courts, which function broadly as appellate-level courts. These proceedings include, in particular, applications for the appointment or challenge of arbitrators, applications to set aside arbitral awards, and proceedings to have awards declared enforceable. The aim is to allow such matters to be handled by courts with concentrated experience in commercial and arbitration disputes. The draft also provides that these proceedings may be conducted entirely in English. This sits alongside wider reforms that expand the use of the English language in German court proceedings and reflects the increasingly international character of arbitration-related court work in Germany.

For global manufacturers, the choice of seat is often influenced by the quality of service: language, speed, and the predictability of court support all matter. The possibility of conducting key arbitration-related court proceedings in English before specialised commercial courts reduces one of the friction points when choosing Germany as a seat in cross-border contracts.

While this does not yet put Germany on the same footing as jurisdictions that have long operated fully in English in this space, it is a clear step in that direction and reinforces the broader policy of making German dispute resolution more accessible for international users.

Osborne Clarke comment

The draft does not seek to redesign German arbitration law from first principles. Instead, it updates specific areas that have become outdated, clarifies points that have caused uncertainty in practice, and introduces a small number of new procedural tools. Given that earlier versions of the reform have already been through a full consultation process, the current text is likely to be broadly indicative of the direction and shape of the final legislation.

For manufacturers operating in international supply chains, the significance of the reform lies less in any single headline change and more in the way the individual elements are intended to reduce procedural risk and uncertainty at every stage of a dispute.

As a ministerial draft, the bill is now subject to a consultation process in which the federal states, industry bodies and other stakeholders can submit written comments, which the Federal Ministry will review and may reflect in a revised text. Only once that process is complete and the draft has been approved by the Federal Cabinet will it become a government bill and enter the parliamentary legislative process, so the final text and timing remain subject to change.