Introducing a new dispute resolution forum in Germany: Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers

The German judicial market is in motion – and since 2025 more than ever: The legislator launched a remarkable initiative, the Legal Venue Strengthening Act (Gesetz zur Stärkung des Justizstandortes Deutschland). To date, this act has led to remarkable shifts in the way complex commercial disputes can be resolved efficiently, “made in Germany”. In particular, the act enabled the German federal states to introduce specialised tribunals for commercial matters within the state court system. Will these tribunals become the new “go-to tribunals” for complex commercial legal disputes?

Understanding Germany’s judicial system

Germany’s state court system is divided into several branches, each dealing with specific types of legal disputes. The so-called ordinary courts (ordentliche Gerichtsbarkeit) handle civil and criminal matters: Civil courts (Zivilgerichte) resolve disputes between private parties, while criminal courts (Strafgerichte) prosecute offences on behalf of the State. Alongside the ordinary courts, Germany provides for several specialised tracks. These include, among others, labour courts (Arbeitsgerichte), administrative courts (Verwaltungsgerichte), social courts (Sozialgerichte), and fiscal courts (Finanzgerichte). Although each of these branches has its own procedural rules, all courts share common constitutional principles such as judicial independence, a multi-tiered appellate structure, and transparency of proceedings.

In Germany, the civil courts are generally divided into local courts (Amtsgerichte, for minor disputes with a value of up to EUR 10,000Until 1 January 2026, the relevant threshold for the value in dispute was EUR 5,000.Show Footnote), regional courts (Landgerichte, first instance courts for any dispute with a value exceeding EUR 10,000), higher regional courts (Oberlandesgerichte), and the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). Within this so-called ordinary civil court system, proceedings follow a clear multi-tiered appellate structure. Appeals against any first instance judgment are brought before the appellate court, and further legal review can be sought before the Federal Court of Justice, which serves as the highest instance court for civil and criminal cases and ensures the uniform application of the law nationwide.

The duration of a typical civil case varies considerably. On average, it may take around 1.5 yearsSee here.Show Footnote from the initial filing until the court issues a final and binding judgment. The overall length of a dispute resolved within the German state court system depends on various factors such as the complexity of the facts, the need for expert evidence, and whether one or more appeal stages are pursued.

Across all branches of Germany’s state judiciary, judges are highly qualified legal professionals. They must complete a law degree, including two state examinations and extensive legal training. After their studies, they enter a probationary period before being appointed as judges for life. However, being trained and appointed as generalists, they may lack certain in-depth subject-matter expertise as well as experience in specific fields of law. Furthermore, judges often rotate between different chambers, hindering long-term specialisation. Additionally, unlike in some other legal systems, judges in Germany are not required to have prior experience in a different legal career before joining the bench.

As an alternative to state court proceedings, parties may in certain cases also choose arbitration. In practice, German state court proceedings were often not considered particularly popular due to excessively lengthy processes, complex procedures and appellate structures, and proceedings being conducted exclusively in German. All of this pushed – in particular international – companies towards arbitration. The German legislature seeks to reverse this trend with the Legal Venue Strengthening Act, strengthening Germany as an attractive forum for dispute resolution and making German state court proceedings more attractive for large-scale and complex legal disputes.

As the presumably most crucial feature of this initiative, the German federal states may introduce so-called “Commercial Courts” and “Commercial Chambers”. These new tribunals offer procedural advantages over previous state civil proceeding – including certain advantages that, until now, parties could only achieve resorting to arbitration. Many federal states followed the call and have already introduced the new tribunals, albeit with considerable differences regarding their practical implementation. Shortly after their respective introductions, the number of cases filed with Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers is expected to remain manageable. This will benefit those who wish to obtain a judgment for their case fairly fast, skipping the long queue and the huge caseload faced at German state courts.

Competences of Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers – how to bring cases before these new tribunals

The Legal Venue Strengthening Act authorises the federal states to establish specialised tribunals as adjudicating bodies in addition to their regular so-called chambers or senates. At the higher regional courts (the higher instance), these new tribunals are called “Commercial Courts”, at the regional courts (the lower instance) “Commercial Chambers”.

The competence of the Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers is determined by the federal states. The legislator has proposed a list of competences, which, however, federal states can expand or restrict. If the federal states do not set specific rules on competence, the Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers are competent for legal disputes between entrepreneurs (except for industrial property rights, unfair competition, and copyright), M&A disputes, and intra-company disputes with an amount in dispute of at least EUR 500,000. However, many federal states have already narrowed this list of competences. For example, the Commercial Court in Berlin is exclusively competent for disputes in construction and architectural lawSee here.Show Footnote, while the Commercial Court in Frankfurt is competent for commercial and corporate law disputesSee here.Show Footnote. As a result, the place of jurisdiction may determine whether the respective legal dispute can be brought before the local Commercial Court or Commercial Chamber.

In addition, the parties must agree on the Commercial Court or Commercial Chamber as adjudicating body. This can be done in advance through contractual agreements for future disputes, and – more relevant for today’s cases – also if a dispute has already arisen. If a party seeks to obtain a decision by the Commercial Court or a Commercial Chamber, it is well advised to work towards reaching such an agreement with the opposing party at an early stage.

In principle, within the boundaries set by the federal legislator and the enacting states, the parties are free to decide whether they wish to bring their legal dispute before the Commercial Court or a Commercial Chamber as the first instance. Regardless, some federal states and case allocation plans at court will shift these cases to the new Commercial Chambers irrespective of the parties´ preferences. As a positive side effect, real-life experience and case law from these Chambers will definitely expand significantly in the near future.

Innovative new procedural rules before the Commercial Courts and the Commercial Chambers

Parties litigating before a Commercial Court or Commercial Chamber benefit from particularly knowledgeable and experienced judges as these tribunals are usually staffed by judges with many years of experience in commercial and economic law, extraordinary language skills and often further qualifications (e.g., obtained through studies abroad).

Moreover, the Legal Venue Strengthening Act also introduces a number of new procedural rules that apply only to the newly created Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers:

• One key feature is the early organisational meeting between the parties and the court. This meeting is similar to the case management conference common to arbitration proceedings, in which the parties and the arbitrator(s) align on arrangements for the organisation and conduct of the proceedings and discuss the procedural calendar. The parties obtain significantly more influence over the course of the proceedings compared to “regular” German state court proceedings in which the judges usually set deadlines and dates that the parties have to comply with without prior alignment. The parties are generally restricted to requesting extensions or postponements in exceptional cases.
• In addition, Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers must keep a verbatim transcript upon the unanimous request of the parties. Verbatim transcripts, as written records of all statements made, are particularly suitable for reliably documenting the course of the proceedings, including any evidence taken. Therefore, verbatim transcripts are widely used and well established in arbitration practice. Outside the Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers, German state courts do not normally keep a verbatim record. Instead, the judges record the key aspects of the oral hearing in accordance with their own understanding of the relevant outcome of the hearing.
• With the agreement of the parties, Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers may conduct proceedings wholly or partly in English. This innovation can be a blessing, particularly for disputes arising from or in connection with English-language (contract) documents or with non-German-speaking parties or witnesses. Nevertheless, if a decision of a Commercial Court is appealed to the Federal Court of Justice, the proceedings must – to date – be conducted in German. In practice, this means that Commercial Courts can initially conduct proceedings in English, and witnesses whose native language is English can testify in their native language. However, this simplification no longer applies before the Federal Court of Justice, meaning that the parties must once again rely on their German-speaking legal counsel.

On the fast track to the Federal Court of Justice

In principle, the appellate process before German state courts consists of three tiers (see above).

However, if the parties litigate before a Commercial Court as the first instance (which would regularly be the second instance), their appeal will be decided directly by the Federal Court of Justice. This immediate way to the highest court in civil law matters, while skipping one instance, is generally considered a considerable advantage both with a view to time and quality of the judgment. In contrast, the regular appeal structure of three instances remains in place for Commercial Chambers. Yet, as a general rule, the Commercial Courts (and not any adjudicating body within the higher regional court) will act as the appellate court for cases that have been decided at first instance by the Commercial Chambers.

Proceedings before the Commercial Court can therefore be particularly interesting if a party wants to be able to quickly appeal to the Federal Court of Justice without an additional appeal instance.

Should I run?

As Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers were only introduced a few months ago in some federal states, the number of cases filed is likely to be manageable (at least for now).

Anyone facing a commercial or trade law dispute in the near future should therefore carefully consider whether they should bring the dispute before one of these two tribunals to benefit from a speedy trial. As the courts currently have sufficient capacity for new cases, this certainly provides a unique and rare opportunity. In addition, both Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers are staffed with highly specialised and experienced judges, which can be beneficial to all parties involved. Compared to arbitration proceedings, which are usually costly, litigation before the Commercial Courts or Commercial Chambers is often significantly less expensive due to fixed schedules of court fees and (reimbursable) lawyers’ fees depending on the amount in dispute. However, there is a potentially significant risk as the flipside of the medal: Costs of legal representation are only recoverable under the restrictions of the applicable fee schedules – and generally limited at a considerably lower level than in arbitration proceedings. Depending on whether a party expects to win or lose and the respective costs of their preferred legal representative, this circumstance may constitute an advantage or disadvantage.

The new option for dispute resolution still needs to be monitored in practice: Will the new procedural rules reap the results hoped for and will they work well in practice? For example, conducting proceedings in English or two languages may give rise to misunderstandings or ambiguities. Additionally, as the competences of the Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers in the individual federal states may vary considerably, potential users may perceive this as an inse-curity. However, this potential “patchwork” may not weigh heavily for legally advised parties. In any event, there may be yet unexplored measures of making the way to the new tribunals more convenient: For example, the legislator or the respective courts might (despite dogmatic and normative discussions) consider assisting parties wishing to explore this new path of dispute resolution by providing viable standard clauses or template agreementsThis is common for arbitral institutions that provide standard clauses, see e.g. here and here.Show Footnote. In view of the wide range of special features of both the new offerings and the existing alternatives, it is definitely worth discussing with legal advisors which option is the most promising on a case-by-case basis.

In any event, it is worthwhile considering the option of a Commercial Court or a Commercial Chamber – especially for those who want to entrust their dispute to a specialised tribunal and take advantage of the currently unusual short duration of proceedings.

Particularly in international legal disputes, Germany has demonstrated that it is ready to face the future and overcome some of its previous disadvantages as legal venue. It remains to be seen to what extent internationals parties will accept the newly introduced tribunals, or whether the new procedural rules will need to be tightened again.