Deviations in Procedure: Adherence to Deadlines Between Oral Hearing and Decision in Arbitration Proceedings
The Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Frankfurt am Main, in a recent decision (Order of 22 April 2021, Ref. 26 Sch 12/21), clarified the scope of statutory deadlines in civil proceedings with regard to arbitration proceedings. The obligation to observe a specific period between the conclusion of the oral hearing and the pronouncement of a judicial decision is clearly regulated for state courts under procedural law. However, there is no such provision for arbitral tribunals—deliberately so.
Principles for Decision-Making in State Courts
According to § 310 (1) ZPO (German Code of Civil Procedure), state courts are generally required to deliver or serve their judgments no later than three weeks after the close of the oral hearing. This period serves to make the decision-making process comprehensible, transparent, and temporally distinct for the parties. Additionally, an appropriate time interval prevents emotions from the closing hearing from unduly influencing the decision-making process. These deadlines reflect the need for legal certainty and transparency in state proceedings.
Arbitration: Autonomous Procedural Regime Without Statutory Deadlines
In contrast, arbitration proceedings are fundamentally shaped by party autonomy. Pursuant to § 1042 (4) ZPO, the parties—unless otherwise agreed—are free to structure the arbitral proceedings independently. This also applies to scheduling and deadlines. A minimum period specifically applicable to state court proceedings between the last oral hearing and the decision does not apply in arbitration, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.
Decision of the OLG Frankfurt am Main
In the case at hand, one party challenged an arbitral award, arguing that the decision was made unduly soon after the close of the oral hearing and thus did not meet minimum constitutional standards. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt am Main disagreed with this view and made it clear that arbitral tribunals are not bound by the deadlines arising from § 310 (1) ZPO. Such requirements cannot be derived from arbitration law.
The legislature has intentionally refrained from imposing rigid deadlines in the interest of flexibility and efficiency, particularly in arbitration proceedings. Party autonomy and the need for confidentiality and expedited dispute resolution are of paramount importance here.
Constitutionality and Rule of Law Requirements
The Higher Regional Court pointed out that party-autonomous procedures or those set out in the respective arbitration rules are generally sufficient to ensure the right to be heard and a fair trial. A violation of the rule of law is only present if the proceedings seem arbitrary or if fundamental procedural guarantees are infringed. No such circumstances were found in the case at issue.
Practical Relevance: Scope for Structuring and Legal Certainty
The decision of the OLG Frankfurt am Main makes clear that parties to arbitration agreements do not forfeit the protection of fundamental procedural transparency. Rather, they are empowered to set standards appropriate to their individual dispute, provided that fundamental procedural rights are maintained. However, arbitral tribunals are obliged to ensure the right to be heard and a fair hearing—but they are not fully bound by state procedural law.
Deviations in Arbitration: Opportunities and Challenges
Particularly in international trade and investment disputes, arbitration offers considerable scope for structuring proceedings. For companies, investors, and wealthy private individuals, this brings accelerated processes and greater confidentiality on the one hand, but also increased demands on the contractual arrangement of possible deadlines and procedural principles on the other. Careful determination of arbitral procedural rules can therefore significantly influence the efficiency and comprehensibility of an arbitration proceeding.
Conclusion
The current case law of the OLG Frankfurt am Main underscores the unique features of arbitration proceedings, particularly regarding their flexibility in scheduling and the timing of decisions. The separation from state procedural law is not a shortcoming here, but rather an expression of the parties’ autonomous regulatory authority.
Should you have further questions about procedure, structuring options, or the review of arbitral decisions, the lawyers at MTR Legal are always available for confidential individual advice and assessment.
