Commercial Courts in Germany: disputes in English, too, INN.LAW

Peter Poleacov11 April 2025 (updated 7 October 2026)18 min

Since 1 April 2025, large commercial disputes in Germany can be heard before Commercial Courts, in English if the parties want, with specialist judges and a shortened route to the Federal Court of Justice. The first-year record, however, is mixed. The Commercial Chambers at the Regional Courts are being used, while the real innovation, first-instance commercial litigation at the Higher Regional Court, barely is – according to the courts, 16 proceedings at the Commercial Courts of eight Higher Regional Courts (excluding Stuttgart), and in Frankfurt and Hamburg not one of them in English. Together with the Commercial Court’s 500,000 euro threshold and seven states without a Commercial Court of their own, that makes the Commercial Court an option for your forum-selection clause, not a default. I show which requirements apply, how the states differ in jurisdictional reach and court language, and when the arbitration clause remains the better choice.

On 1 April 2025, the Act to Strengthen Germany as a Place of Justice by Introducing Commercial Courts and English as a Court Language in Civil Jurisdiction (Justizstandort-Stärkungsgesetz) entered into force.

The act brings far-reaching changes to how commercial disputes are handled in Germany. The goal is to make Germany more attractive as a place of justice, in particular for international companies.

What does the introduction of the Commercial Courts mean in practice for international businesses? I explain the main advantages and the jurisdictional reach and show when going to the new courts is worthwhile.

What are the Commercial Courts and why were they introduced?

The Commercial Courts are specialized panels at German Higher Regional Courts (Oberlandesgerichte) that hear large commercial disputes. The chambers at selected Regional Courts (Landgerichte) that the state has designated to hear commercial disputes in English as well are called Commercial Chambers. The main aim is to make Germany more attractive as a forum in international competition and to offer an efficient, practice-oriented alternative to often lengthy proceedings or expensive arbitration. A key advantage is that the whole proceedings can be conducted in English.

What the Commercial Courts offer

English as the language of proceedings

International contracts and business communication are often in English. Conducting the whole proceedings in English cuts translation costs and reduces the risk of misunderstandings.

The parties have to agree expressly or impliedly to English as the language of the proceedings, or the defendant joins issue in English without objection in its statement of defense (Section 184a(3) of the German Courts Constitution Act, Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, GVG).

Even the Federal Court of Justice can continue proceedings in English that were conducted in English in the lower court, if this is requested when the appeal is lodged and the panel agrees (Section 184b GVG).

Specialized judges and faster procedure

The judges at the Commercial Courts specialize in commercial disputes. The act also provides for leaner procedural steps to enable faster decisions.

Protection of trade secrets

Trade-secret protection during the proceedings is reinforced by Section 273a of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO). On a party’s application, the court can now classify information at issue as requiring confidentiality if it may qualify as a trade secret. This applies in every civil case, and so also before the Commercial Courts.

Efficient proceedings

Section 612 ZPO requires Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers to hold an early case-management hearing, at which the court agrees with the parties on the organization and course of the proceedings, unless substantive or organizational reasons stand against it. This is meant to make the proceedings more efficient and has proven itself in arbitration as the case-management conference.¹ After more than 18 years as a commercial litigator, I very much welcome this step.

If both parties apply for a verbatim transcript at first instance, the court must keep one under Section 613 ZPO, unless practical reasons stand in the way. The parties can read it as the hearing proceeds.

The short route to the Federal Court of Justice

A revision to the Federal Court of Justice is available against first-instance judgments of the Commercial Court, and it does not require separate leave (Section 614 sentence 2 ZPO). That sounds technical, but it is the greatest advantage of the whole model.

As a rule, the losing party has no free access to a revision. It has to be admitted by the appellate court, which happens only where the case is of fundamental significance or where the development of the law or consistency of case law requires it. Otherwise all that remains is the complaint against denial of leave. This is a purely written procedure in which the amount at stake has to exceed EUR 25,000 (Section 544(2) No. 1 ZPO) and in which the party does not argue for itself first, but has to convince the Federal Court of Justice that its case belongs there for reasons going beyond the dispute. Before a Commercial Court, that hurdle falls away entirely.

Where both sides already expect at the drafting stage that the dispute will be taken to the Federal Court of Justice anyway, or where the point is precisely to obtain a leading decision, the Commercial Court is the faster and safer route there. There are two instances instead of three, and no leave is required.²

Which disputes fall within the Commercial Courts’ jurisdiction?

The Commercial Courts have first-instance jurisdiction for:

civil disputes between businesses, except matters of industrial property, copyright, and claims under the German Act against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, UWG);
disputes arising from or in connection with the acquisition of a company or shares in a company; and
disputes between a company and members of its management or supervisory board.

The state can limit the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction to specific subject areas by ordinance. It can also extend it to subject areas where the Regional Court has exclusive jurisdiction or another exclusive venue is provided.

The amount in dispute must be at least EUR 500,000; the statute sets this threshold for the Commercial Court. For the Commercial Chambers, each state decides whether a threshold of its own applies; in Frankfurt it is also EUR 500,000.³

The statute requires no international element. Neither the parties nor the subject matter have to be international; a purely domestic commercial dispute can be brought before the Commercial Court as well, provided the subject area and the amount in dispute fit.²

How you get to the Commercial Court

Jurisdiction does not arise by itself. There are four routes:

A jurisdiction clause in the contract. The reliable route. You designate the Commercial Court before the dispute exists and do not depend on the other side’s goodwill. Baden-Württemberg provides the Stuttgart model clause for this.
An ad hoc agreement after the dispute has arisen. Both sides agree on the Commercial Court only once the dispute is under way. This is rare in practice. A party that expects an advantage from its home court will not consent.
Referral under Section 611 ZPO. The Regional Court refers proceedings pending before it to the Commercial Court. This route, too, requires both sides to take part. The claimant applies for referral in the statement of claim and the defendant consents before the deadline for the statement of defense expires, or the other way round.
Appearance without objection under Section 119b(2) sentence 3 GVG. The claimant requests the Commercial Court in the statement of claim, and the defendant joins issue without objection in its statement of defense.

Two points belong in the same clause. First, an agreed jurisdiction is exclusive under Section 119b(2) sentence 2 GVG unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. That is the default. The Hague Convention, too, requires an exclusive choice of court agreement, see below. Second, if you want to litigate in English, agree that expressly in the dispute resolution clause rather than relying on reaching agreement later.⁴

You also decide yourself whether to choose the Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court or the Commercial Chamber at the Regional Court, and with it whether you get two instances or three.⁵

If you want the Commercial Court, put it in the contract. If you count on the other side agreeing later or not objecting, you will as a rule end up at the Regional Court.

Overview of Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers by federal state

Baden-Württemberg

Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart, specializing in corporate disputes and M&A
Commercial Chambers at the Regional Court of Stuttgart

Stuttgart is by far the busiest location; see the record below.

A model clause (the “Stuttgart model clause”) is available on the website of the Commercial Court Baden-Württemberg.

Sources: Press release of the State Government of Baden-Württemberg of 1 April 2025, Commercial Court Baden-Württemberg

Bavaria

Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court of Munich, two panels, covering all of Bavaria, specializing in supply chain disputes between businesses and disputes between a company and members of its management or supervisory board

Berlin

Commercial Court at the Court of Appeal (Kammergericht), specializing in construction and architects’ law
Commercial Chambers at the Regional Court of Berlin II, specializing in construction and architects’ law

Source: Press release of the Court of Appeal of 1 April 2025

Bremen

Commercial Court at the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in Bremen, specializing in aerospace, logistics, maritime trade, and hydrogen

Source: Hanseatic Commercial Court for Aerospace, Logistics and Maritime Trade of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen (Hanseatic Commercial Court Bremen, HCCB)

Hamburg

Commercial Court at the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court, specializing in construction law, banking and finance, corporate law, and M&A
Commercial Court at the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court, specializing in insurance, transport, shipping, and traffic
Commercial Chambers at the Regional Court of Hamburg

Sources: Press release of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Commercial Court Hamburg

Hesse

Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt, since 1 July 2025
Commercial Chambers at the Regional Court of Frankfurt, since 1 July 2025

Sources: Press release of the Hessian Ministry of Justice and Rule of Law of 1 April 2025, half-year record of 26 January 2026, one-year record of 1 July 2026

Lower Saxony

Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court of Celle, since September 2025, two panels, covering all of Lower Saxony
Commercial Chambers at the Regional Courts of Hanover, Braunschweig, and Osnabrück

Lower Saxony does not restrict jurisdiction to specific subject areas under Section 119b(1) GVG; both panels hear domestic and international disputes.

Source: Commercial Court Celle at the Higher Regional Court of Celle

North Rhine-Westphalia

Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, specializing in construction and architects’ matters
Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, specializing in insurance law (in particular D&O insurance)
Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, specializing in corporate and post-M&A disputes
Commercial Chambers at the Regional Courts of Bielefeld, Düsseldorf, Essen, and Cologne. At the same time, the existing specializations at those courts for renewable-energy law (Regional Courts of Bielefeld and Essen), IT disputes (Regional Court of Cologne), and corporate transactions (Regional Court of Düsseldorf) were expanded, to the extent those proceedings are to be conducted in English.

Sources: Press release of the State Government of NRW of 12 March 2025; Press release of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf

Saxony

Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court of Dresden, since 1 November 2025, two panels, specializing in leases of real property and premises, banking law, and corporate law (Section 7 of the Saxon Judicial Organization Ordinance, Sächsische Justizorganisationsverordnung, SächsJOrgVO)

Saxony departs from every other state with a Commercial Court on two points, and both matter for your clause. Proceedings before the Commercial Court Dresden cannot be conducted in English; among the states with a Commercial Court, only Saxony did not use the statutory authorization. And jurisdiction is limited to disputes governed by German law. Choose another governing law, and you lose the forum. What foreign law before a German court costs in time and money is set out in “Best practice for handling foreign law”.

Source: Commercial Court Dresden at the Higher Regional Court of Dresden

One year on: the record

The figures differ widely depending on the source. Graf von Westphalen asked the Higher Regional Courts for the case numbers of their Commercial Courts. For the period from 1 April 2025, he arrives at 16 proceedings at eight courts, excluding Stuttgart.⁶ Düsseldorf leads with five proceedings in 2025 and one in 2026, plus three completed construction cases, followed by Hamburg with three, Frankfurt with two, and Berlin with one. Munich recorded none in 2025 and one in 2026. Celle, Dresden, and Bremen have had none so far. For Frankfurt and Hamburg, he expressly reports that none of the proceedings was conducted in English.

Hesse reports something entirely different. One year after the start on 1 July 2025, more than 100 proceedings had been filed there, with an aggregate amount in dispute of more than one billion euros, ranging from EUR 500,000 to some EUR 450 million in individual cases. Some hearings were held in English.⁷

The contradiction dissolves once you separate the two types of panel. Graf von Westphalen counts the proceedings of the Commercial Courts at the Higher Regional Courts. Hesse counts the Commercial Court and the Commercial Chambers together, and the chambers sit at the Regional Courts. That is where most of the proceedings are; the ministry gives no precise breakdown.⁷ The genuine novelty of the act, moving a commercial dispute into first instance at the Higher Regional Court, is therefore barely being used, while the specialized chambers at the Regional Courts are being taken up.

Baden-Württemberg confirms the pattern. The Commercial Chambers in Stuttgart and the Commercial Court of Baden-Württemberg handled some 1,100 proceedings up to the end of 2025, with an aggregate amount in dispute of more than EUR 2.4 billion.⁶ The Stuttgart chambers, however, have existed since November 2020, long before the act. What works there is not the new act but the specialization built up over years.

Three things follow for your clause. First, the Commercial Chambers at the Regional Court are the tested route, the Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court is the experiment. Second, a panel without cases has no routine, and routine is the reason for choosing a specialized court in the first place. Third, if you want to litigate in English, check the location closely. In Dresden it is not possible at all, and at the Commercial Courts in Frankfurt and Hamburg it did not happen once in the first year.

Commercial Courts versus arbitration: which is the better choice?

The decision between a Commercial Court and arbitration depends on the individual case and should be part of the drafting and negotiation of an international contract.

Arbitration offers more flexibility in shaping the procedure and is internationally accepted. Arbitral awards can also be enforced internationally in significantly more countries than judgments of German courts (which does not change with the introduction of the Commercial Courts in Germany).

Commercial Courts, by contrast, bring state authority and, as a rule, lower procedural costs. Before a Commercial Court at a Higher Regional Court there are two instances instead of three, because the Regional Court as the first fact-finding instance falls away.⁴ That is offset by shorter proceedings, the specialization of the panels, and the fact that no single judge decides (Section 610(1) ZPO); on top of that comes leave-free access to the Federal Court of Justice.

Two criteria are regularly overlooked in this choice. One is access to evidence. Arbitration offers document production, a procedure for obtaining documents from the other side, while the ZPO allows this only within narrow limits. Conversely, only state courts can impose coercive measures, for instance to compel a witness to appear. The arbitral tribunal can, however, apply to a state court for assistance in taking evidence (Section 1050 ZPO). A party that has to build its case on the other side’s records chooses differently from one that depends on witnesses. The other is depth of review against finality. An arbitral award is usually final, setting aside proceedings apart, whereas the Commercial Court opens the route to the Federal Court of Justice. A party wanting the matter closed quickly decides differently from one that needs a review.⁴ How document production actually works in arbitration is shown in the article “Evidence gathering in the USA for international arbitration”.

The arbitral institutions have more experience. They have been running proceedings for decades, while the new panels at the Higher Regional Courts have had hardly any cases so far. I compare which institution suits which contract in the article “Arbitration rules compared”.

The enforcement argument deserves a distinction that is usually left out. It is true that arbitral awards can be enforced in far more states under the New York Convention than German judgments. Outside the EU, however, there is also the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 2005, and it requires an exclusive choice of court agreement, which is exactly what you should be agreeing anyway. Writing the Commercial Court into the contract therefore also improves recognition of the later judgment. As of 27 November 2025, the Convention has 39 contracting parties, including, alongside the EU, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Mexico, Singapore, Ukraine, Montenegro, and Albania. It does not solve the problem, though, because the United States and China have signed but not ratified. Where your counterparty sits there, the old finding stands, and the arbitration clause remains the better choice.⁸ The map and country table in the article “Arbitration or litigation?” show in which states a German judgment is enforced.

A careful weighing of the pros and cons is essential.

Conclusion

The instrument is right; the implementation does not yet work everywhere. The legislator created the framework that internationally active business has been demanding for years. What is being taken up so far is the familiar level, the specialized chamber at the Regional Court. For the actual change of system, a commercial dispute heard in first instance at the Higher Regional Court, there have been hardly any cases so far.

The obstacles are known. The Commercial Court’s amount-in-dispute threshold of EUR 500,000 is high, seven federal states have set up no Commercial Court to date, and the Federal Court of Justice can refuse to continue proceedings in English. On top of that, a panel without case practice competes with arbitral institutions that have been running proceedings for decades. No act can change that.

For your contracts, that means the Commercial Court is an option, not the default. It pays off where the counterparty is based in Germany, the EU, or another contracting state of the Hague Convention, so the judgment must be recognized there, where the amount in dispute fits, and where a specialized panel with actual case practice is within reach. Check the specific location before you write it into the clause. Subject-matter reach, language of proceedings, and case practice differ considerably from state to state. Where those conditions are missing, the arbitration clause remains the better choice, for the same reasons as before 1 April 2025.

Article 27.2 of the 2018 Arbitration Rules of the German Arbitration Institute (Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, DIS) on the case management conference; Annex 3 lists the measures for increasing procedural efficiency that the tribunal discusses there with the parties under Article 27.4. ↩
Waclawik, Die Commercial Courts als alternativer Weg zum BGH, NJW 2025, 3457 (3457 f.), on leave-free access under Section 614 sentence 2 ZPO, on the regular route under Sections 542 et seq. ZPO, and on the absence of any requirement of an international element. ↩¹ ²
von Kulessa, Die neuen Commercial Courts und Commercial Chambers in Deutschland – Eine erste Bestandsaufnahme, RInPrax 2025, 241 (243 f.) paras. 20, 26; on Frankfurt, Section 4a(1) of the Hessian Judicial Jurisdiction Ordinance (Justizzuständigkeitsverordnung), inserted by the ordinance of 6 June 2025 (GVBl. 2025 No. 33). ↩
Fay/Shingler/Kleinschmitt, Einführung von englischsprachigen Commercial Courts, RIW 2025, 93 (94, 98), on exclusive jurisdiction under Section 119b(2) sentence 2 GVG, on access to evidence, and on the trade-off between depth of review and finality. ↩¹ ² ³
Flockermann/Deuring, Ein Blick in die nahe und fernere Zukunft von Wirtschaftsprozessen, NJW 2024, 879, on the two- or three-tier chain of instances depending on the chosen court of first instance. ↩
Graf von Westphalen, Commercial Courts: Keine Traumbilanz für 2025 – ausgenommen Stuttgart, IWRZ 2026, 55. ↩¹ ²
Hessian Ministry of Justice and Rule of Law, press releases of 26 January 2026 (Positive Bilanz der neuen Commercial Courts) and 1 July 2026 (Ein Jahr Commercial Court und Commercial Chambers). According to the January release, dozens of the some 60 proceedings had already been filed with the Commercial Chambers of the Regional Court of Frankfurt, where some hearings were held in English. ↩¹ ²
Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 30 June 2005; contracting parties per the status table of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, as of 27 November 2025. On its significance for international choice of court agreements see Antomo, NJW 2015, 2919. ↩

Reference: Poleacov, P. (2026). Commercial Courts in Germany. INN.LAW. https://inn.law/en/perspectives/commercial-courts-germany/