CLOUT
index.
Case 373: MAL 16(3)
Germany: Kammergericht Berlin; 28 Sch 17/99
15 October 1999
Original in German
Published inGerman: [2000/2] Recht und Praxis der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit 13
This decision arose out of an action to set aside an award for lack of jurisdiction and dealt with the interpretation of an arbitration clause referring to a non-existing arbitral institution.
The parties entered into a contract providing for arbitration under the rules of the "German Central Chamber of Commerce". Since no such organisation or rules exist the claimant started arbitration proceedings under the rules of the Deutsches Institut für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. Upon the respondent's plea that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the tribunal rendered a partial award on jurisdiction according to section 1040(3) German Code of Civil Procedure (adapted from article 16(3) MAL). That award in favour of jurisdiction was challenged by the respondent pursuant to section 1040(3)(2) German Code of Civil Procedure before the Kammergericht Berlin.
The Court held that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement despite the referral to a non- existing arbitration institution since it was possible to determine through interpretation a particular arbitration institution. The Court stated that arbitration clauses are to be construed in accordance with the general principles of interpretation applicable under the law of the contract. A broad interpretation should be applied, if necessary, to meet the parties' intentions. In the case at issue, the parties had agreed that their contract should be governed by German law and that any dispute should be settled by an arbitration institution seated in Germany. Furthermore, the reference to the "German Central Chamber of Commerce" indicated that the parties wanted to submit their case to the arbitration institution authorized or recommended by the institution which the parties described as the German Central Chamber of Commerce. In light of these circumstances, there was only one arbitration institution which the parties could have meant; i.e. the Deutsches Institut für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. Therefore, respondent's application was to be dismissed.
UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW
CASE LAW ON UNCITRAL TEXTS (CLOUT)
Abstracts of cases
This compilation of abstracts forms part of the system for collecting and disseminating information on court decisions and arbitral awards relating to Conventions and Model Laws that have emanated from the work of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Information about the features of that system and about its use is provided in the User Guide (A/CN.9/SER.C/GUIDE/1).
The abstracts have been prepared by national correspondents designated by their Governments. It should be noted that neither the national correspondents nor anyone else directly or indirectly involved in the operation of the system assumes any responsibility for any error or omission or other deficiency.
__________
Copyright © United Nations 2000
All rights reserved.
Reproduced on this web site (www.interarb.com) with the kind permission of the United Nations, New York.
Database, typography, layout, etc. © interarb, 2003.