The new DIHK Arbitration Court – an initial assessment after one and a half years

For just over one and a half years – more precisely, since December 2024 – the Arbitration Court (“Schiedsgerichtshof”, or “SGH”) of the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (“DIHK”) has officially been in operation. This is reason enough to take stock: how has this new player positioned itself within the German dispute resolution landscape, what experience has been gained so far – and what does this mean in practice?

Background: From decentralised IHK arbitration to a unified arbitration court

Some chambers of industry and commerce within the IHK organisation have long administered arbitration proceedings, in some cases drawing on a tradition stretching back decades or even over a century (e.g. Hamburg). Until the establishment of the nationwide Arbitration Court at the DIHK, regionally varying models existed: in some cases, chambers of industry and commerce administered proceedings independently; in others, referral and cooperation models were used (e.g. with the German Arbitration Institute, or “DIS”). As a result, the services on offer were historically more heterogeneous than uniformly standardised across the country. With the establishment of the SGH, the DIHK has consolidated these services at national level and brought them together under a single institutional umbrella. This step has helped to raise the visibility of the IHK organisation's dispute resolution offering and to pool expertise. But how is the SGH faring in practice?

First proceedings: The SGH in practice

According to SGH Chairman Prof. Dr Stephan Wernicke, the SGH has so far already administered around a dozen and a half cases – including both domestic matters and cross-border disputes from various sectors and market segments. For an institution that has only been operational since the end of 2024, this is a remarkable figure, indicating growing acceptance within the business community. It also demonstrates that the SGH is able to utilise its links to the business community via the 79 chambers of industry and commerce (“IHKs”) and the globally active chambers of commerce abroad (“AHKs”) to successfully offer alternative dispute resolution solutions. 

By way of comparison, even today's renowned arbitral institutions began their early years with case numbers that – at first glance – appeared modest. This is due in particular to the fact that the initiation of institutionally administered arbitration proceedings – such as those before the SGH – requires an agreement between the disputing parties referring to the relevant arbitral institution or its rules. Such agreement usually takes the form of an arbitration clause in the contract between the commercial partners. Companies and their legal advisers must first negotiate these new clauses into their contracts. The actual uptake of SGH arbitration proceedings will therefore only become apparent over time, once disputes arise from contractual relationships and it becomes clear which institution the arbitration clause in newly concluded contracts refers to. It will accordingly be crucial whether the SGH can maintain its momentum and continue to raise its profile.

Focus on small and medium-sized enterprises – with an international reach

The SGH’s services are aimed in particular at small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) – a sector with numerous potential users that has so far been only partially served by existing alternative dispute resolution options. For SMEs in particular, the barrier to initiating arbitration proceedings can be high – whether due to cost, the complexity of procedural rules or simply a lack of experience with arbitration. The SGH focuses on lowering these barriers to entry and offering a cost structure better suited for SMEs. At the same time, its scope is not limited to the domestic market: the SGH Rules are available in both German and English, which is essential for a strongly export-oriented German economy to ensure that an SGH arbitration clause can be considered when contracting with foreign partners. 

Furthermore, particularly in trade with non-European business partners, arbitration often remains the preferred dispute resolution mechanism compared with state court proceedings, owing to the simplified enforceability of arbitral awards under the 1958 New York Convention. As was to be expected, the very first proceedings administered by the SGH already show that cross-border disputes are indeed being resolved before the SGH – evidence that its international orientation is being embraced in practice.

Digital case management 

A distinctive feature of the SGH is its consistently digital approach. The digital case management platform (“VMP”) enables proceedings to be initiated digitally, tasks to be allocated in a structured manner and reminder notifications to be sent. An integrated chat function is currently being planned. Furthermore, the SGH is committed to simplifying proceedings: arbitration proceedings can be initiated online using a concise five-page form (the “Request for Arbitration”), which facilitates access, particularly for parties with less experience of arbitration. A statement of case need not be attached to the Request for Arbitration. Pursuant to Article 4(3) of the SGH Rules, this may be submitted at a later date within 14 calendar days of the Request for Arbitration. The introduction of the so-called “Basisdokument” – originally discussed as a means of consolidating and standardising the parties’ entire submissions in a single document – does not, however, appear to be pursued further. Overall, the SGH is making a targeted commitment to modern technology and streamlined processes in order to enhance efficiency and transparency in case management – an approach that can offer particular added value for time-sensitive commercial disputes.

Mediation as a complementary regional service

In addition to arbitration, the DIHK continues to rely on mediation as a complementary dispute resolution mechanism. Unlike arbitration proceedings, however, mediation services remain anchored in the individual local chambers of industry and commerce and are not administered centrally at DIHK level. This seems appropriate, as the regional chambers of industry and commerce already have decades of experience in mediation and also train mediators themselves. This deliberate division of labour preserves regional proximity and the expertise that has developed in mediation, whilst at the same time offering the advantages of centralised, institutional arbitration.

Osborne Clarke Commentary

The DIHK’s SGH has made a promising start in its first one and a half years. It is characterised by its early case figures, its consistently digital approach and its targeted focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. That said, the SGH remains at an early stage of its development: in order to establish itself permanently as a credible alternative to existing national and international institutions, it will be crucial to implement robust procedural standards, build up a high-quality pool of arbitrators and, above all, gain trust in practice. 

For businesses – particularly SMEs – it is already worthwhile to consider the SGH as an option. Anyone wishing to include an SGH arbitration clause in their contracts should use the model clause published on the Arbitration Court's website and, where necessary, adapt it to the specific features of the contractual relationship in question. Osborne Clarke would be happy to advise you on selecting the appropriate dispute resolution clause and on representation in arbitration proceedings, including before the SGH.