¹ OJ [2001] L 12/1.

² OJ [1998] C 27/1.

³ Art. 1, Brussels Convention:

This Convention shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters.

The Convention shall not apply to: 1.…– 3….

4. arbitration.

⁴ Art. 1 CR (EC) No 44/2001:

1. This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters.

2. The Regulation shall not apply to:

(a)…–(c)…

(d) arbitration. 3.…

⁵ Art. 22:

The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile:

1….

2. in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or of the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat. In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law;

3.…–5 …

⁶ Art. 16 Brussels Convention:

The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile:

1….

2. in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Contracting State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat;

3.…–5….

⁷ Kropholler, , Europäisches Zivilprozeβrecht, 6th ed. (Heidelberg 1998) Art. 1, ann. 40 et seq.Google Scholar

⁸ Sect. 1025 to 1066 CCP 1998 are published in an English version in International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration (general editor: Albert Jan, van den Berg) (Kluwer 2001) Vol. IIGoogle Scholar, Germany, Annex I, with an introduction by K.H. Böckstiegel.

⁹ Stein, /Jonas-Schlosser, , ZPO, 21th ed. (1994) § 1048, ann. 9 et seq.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Scholz, /Emmerich, , GmbHG, 9th ed. (2000) § 13, ann. 29 et seq.Google Scholar

¹¹ (1992) ECR I-1769 et seq. = RIW 1992, p. 492 et seq.

¹² (1992) ECR I-1774 et seq., at no. 14 et seq.

¹³ It is worthwhile to cite the official report of the Federal Government on the draft of Sect. 1066 (BT-Ds 13/5274):

“…

Während der vertragsrechtliche Charakter von Schiedsvereinbarungen im Rahmen von Personengesellschaften nicht zweifelhaft ist,unterfallen Schiedsklauseln in Vereinssatzungen, Satzungen von Aktiengesellschaften und Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung nach herrschender Meinung ebenfalls § 1048 ZPO. Dies hat zur Folge, daβ insbesondere das Schriftformerfordernis des § 1027 Abs. 1 ZPO für solche Schiedsvereinbarungen nicht gilt. Die Reformkommission hat sich dagegen der Mindermeinung angeschlossen, wonach solche Schiedsklauseln vertragsrechtlichen Charakter haben, es sich insoweit also ebenfalls um Schiedsvereinbarungen im Sinne des § 1029 ZPO-E handelt. Sie sah sich in ihrer Auffassung bestärkt durch das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs vom 10. März 1992 (RIW 1992, S. 492), wonach eine Gerichtsstandvereinbarung in der Satzung einer Aktiengesellschaft als Vertrag anzusehen ist, der sowohl die Beziehungen zwischen den Aktionären als auch die Beziehungen zwischen diesen und der Gesellschaft regelt. Der Entwurf läβt diese Frage offen, um die Rechtsentwicklung im Anschluβ an die zitierte Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs nicht zu präjudizieren. Angesichts der liberalen Formvorschriften des § 1031 ZPO-E begegnen Schiedsklauseln in Vereinssatzungen und in Satzungen von Kapitalgesellschaften im übrigen künftig auch dann keinen rechtlichen Bedenken, wenn man ihnen entgegen der herrschenden Meinung vertragsrechtlichen Charakter beimisst.”

¹⁴ Statistisches, Bundesamt, Statistisches Jahrbuch 2000 (Stuttgart 2000) p. 128.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Scholz-Emmerich, , GmbHG, 9th ed. (Köln 2000) § 23, ann. 29 et seq.Google Scholar

¹⁶ BGHZ 132, 278 et seq.; with comments by Schlosser, , JZ (1996) 1020Google Scholar; Bork, , 160 ZHR (1996), 374Google Scholar; Westermann, WuB II C § 248 AktG 1.96; Henze, , ZIP (2002) 97, at pp. 99 et seq.Google Scholar

¹⁷ (1992) Rev.Arb. 470.

¹⁸ § 248 AktG:

Effect of Judgement

(1) If the resolution has been declared null and void by a judgement which is final and not subject to appeal, such judgement shall be binding on all shareholders and the members of the management board and the supervisory board, even if such persons were not parties to the action. The management board shall promptly submit the judgement to the commercial register. If the resolution has been registered in the commercial register, the judgement shall likewise be registered. The registration of the judgement shall be announced in the same manner as the registration of the resolution.

(2) …

¹⁹ Sect. 1055 = Sect. 1040 CCP 1900:

Effect of arbitral award

The arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding court judgement.

²⁰ BGHZ 132, p. 278, 286 et seq.

²¹ Example of a modern arbitration clause in the articles of association of a GmbH:

I. All disputes out of or in relation to this contract are to be exclusively decided by an arbitral tribunal. The arbitral tribunal is specifically to decide on

– the validity of this contract, its content and interpretation,

– any dispute between the company or one of its institutions (Organe) and shareholder(s),

– disputes between shareholders,

– disputes to have a shareholders' declaration avoided or void (see sect. 2) or declared null and

– disputes to have the company annulled.

II.1. A shareholder, wishing to have a shareholders' resolution of the company avoided – claimant – must commence against the company – respondent – an arbitration proceeding within one month after the resolution has been passed. No such time limitation exists for an action to have a shareholders' resolution declared null and void (Nichtigkeitsklage).

2. The claimant has to inform the respondent accordingly in writing by registered letter, without nominating an arbitrator.

3. The claimant is to immediately inform all other shareholders of his action by registered letter, stating its subject matter. By receipt of this letter all other shareholders lose the right to commence as claimant another arbitration proceeding concerning the same subject matter. Should other arbitration proceedings concerning the same subject matter have been commenced prior to receipt of this letter, they shall be joined.

4. The claimant in his letter according to sect. 2 is to invite all other shareholders to declare in writing by registered letter within two weeks to claimant and respondent, whether they wish to participate in the arbitration proceedings as additional claimant(s) or respondent(s). A shareholder who refrains from making such statement in due course, does not participate in the arbitration, notwithstanding his right to join the proceedings at any time on the side of either claimant(s) or respondent(s). He has to accept the state of the proceedings, as they are at the time of his joinder.

5. If it has been established according to sect. 2–4 that there is only one claimant and one respondent, each party is to appoint its arbitrator by registered letter within one month.

6. If it has been established according to sect. 2–4, that there are more than one claimant or more than one respondent, claimant(s) and/or respondent(s) shall appoint one arbitrator for each side by registered letter.

7. The party-appointed arbitrators have to agree on the chairman of the arbitral tribunal within one month. If they fail to do so, the chairman will be appointed by the Appellate Court in … at the application of a party or a party appointed arbitrator.

8. Should one of the claimant(s) or one of the respondent(s) fail to agree on their party appointed arbitrator, all three arbitrators shall be appointed by the Appellate Court in … at the application of a party, thereby terminating any previous party appointment of an arbitrator.

9. The final award of the arbitral tribunal shall be binding between the parties and between all shareholders who did not participate in the arbitration proceedings.

III. …

(Part of this clause by courtesy of Clifford Chance Pünder, Frankfurt/Germany).

²² BGHZ 132, 278.

²³ On the very similar situation in Austria see Hempel, , “Zur Schiedsfähigkeit von Rechts-streitigkeiten über Beschluβmängel in der GmbH”, in: Festschrift Krejci – Zum Recht der Wirtschaft (Vienna 2001) 1769, at pp. 1778 et seq.Google Scholar

²⁴ Scholz-Winter, , GmbHG, 9th ed. (Köln 2000) § 14, ann. 50 et seq.Google Scholar

²⁵ BT-Ds. 13/5274, p. 34; MünchKomm ZPO-Münch, 2nd ed. (München 2001) Vor § 1025, ann. 2.Google Scholar

²⁶ BGHZ 144, 146, 148 et seq.

²⁷ The situation in Austria is different in this respect. See Hempel, supra n. 23, at pp. 1778 et seq.

²⁸ BGHZ 110, 47; BGHZ 132, 141; BGHZ 135, 387; BGH WM (1998) 1028.

²⁹ Sect. 1059 CCP:

Application for setting aside

(1) Recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside in accordance with subsections 2 and 3 of this sect.

(2) An arbitral award may be set aside only if:

1. …

2. the court finds that

a) …

b) recognition or enforcement of the award leads to a result which is in conflict with public policy (ordre public).

3. … – 5. …

³⁰ For further details of such a clause see supra n. 21.

³¹ Sect. 46 GmbH-Act:

The shareholders decide on:

1. the annual accounts and the appropriation of the profits;

2. the call of payments on the share capital contributions;

3. the repayment of supplementary contributions;

4. the splitting and the redemption of shares;

5. the appointment and the removal of managing directors and their discharge from responsibilities;

6. the measures applicable to the examination and supervision of the management;

7. the appointment of Prokurists (holders of special authority) and holders of a general Handlungsvollmacht;

8. the assertion of damage claims against managing directors or shareholders, due to the company from the formation or from the conduct of the management, as well as the representation of the company in litigation with the managing directors.

³² Sect. 75 GmbH-Act:

Action for Invalidation

(1) If the articles of association contain no provisions regarding the amount of the share capital or regarding the purpose of the enterprise or if provisions of the articles of association regarding the purpose of the enterprise are invalid, then each shareholder, each managing director, and each member of the supervisory board, in the case that a supervisory board is appointed, may bring an action with the motion that the company be declared invalid.

(2) The provisions of §§ 246 to 248 Stock Corporation Act shall apply accordingly.

³³ Sect. 51 a GmbH-Act:

Right to Information and Inspection

(1) The managing directors shall without undue delay inform any shareholder, upon request, of the affairs of the company and permit him to inspect the books and records.

(2) The managing directors may refuse to give the information and to permit the inspection, if there is reason to fear that the shareholder will use it for purposes extraneous to the company and will thereby cause harm, which is not immaterial, to the company or to an affiliated enterprise. The refusal requires a shareholders' resolution.

(3) These provisions cannot be changed by the articles of association.

³⁴ Sect. 34-GmbH-Act:

Redemption

(1) The redemption (amortization) of shares may only be effected insofar as the articles of association so provide.

(2) Without the consent of the holder of the share the redemption may only be executed if its prerequisites had been determined in the articles of association before the date on which the holder acquired the share.

(3) The provision of § 30 (I) remains unaffected.

For the text of sect. 46 no. 4 see supra n. 31.

³⁵ See Scholz-Westermann, , GmbHG, 9. ed. (Köln 2000) § 34, ann. 13 et seq.Google Scholar

³⁶ BGHZ 146, 341.

³⁷ § 23 sect.5 AktG:

(5) The articles may make different provisions from the provisions of this Act only if this Act explicitly so permits. The articles may contain additional provisions, except as to matters that are conclusively dealt with in this Act.

³⁸ Hüffer, , AktG, 4th ed. (München 1999) § 23, ann. 43Google Scholar; Münchener Kommentar Aktiengesetz (München 2000) § 23, ann. 162Google Scholar; Henze, supra n. 16, at p. 100; Hüffer, , “Beschluβmängel im Aktienrecht und im Recht der GmbH – eine Bestandsaufnahme unter Berücksichtigung der Beschlüsse von Leitungs- und Überwachungsorganen”, ZGR (2001) 833, 857.Google Scholar

³⁹ Henze, ibid., at p. 100.

Henze is a member of the II. Chamber of the Bundesgerichtshof which decides on corporate and company law.

⁴⁰ Baums, , “Empfiehlt sich eine Neuregelung des aktienrechtlichen Anfechtungs- und Organhaftungsrechts, insbesondere der Klagemöglichkeiten von Aktionären?” Gutachten F für den 63. Deutschen Juristentag (München 2000) p. F 97.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Hüffer, supra n. 38, at p. 857.

⁴² OJ [2001] L 294/1.

⁴³ K. Schmidt, Groβkommentar zum AktG, 4th ed., § 246, ann. 121; Henze, supra n. 16, at p. 100.

⁴⁴ Henze, ibid.

⁴⁵ Sect. 1034 CCP:

Composition of arbitral tribunal

(1) …

(2) If the arbitration agreement grants preponderant rights to one party with regard to the composition of the arbitral tribunal which place the other party at a disadvantage, that other party may request the court to appoint the arbitrator or arbitrators in deviation from the nomination made, or from the agreed nomination procedure. The request must be submitted at the latest within two weeks of the party becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Sect. 1032 subs. 3 applies mutatis mutandis.

⁴⁶ MünchKomm ZPO-Münch, 2nd ed. (München 2001) § 1035, ann. 33 et seq.