Should German Courts Review Competition Law Awards on the Merits? Significance of the German Federal Supreme Court’s Decision of 27 September 2022

Abstract

The extent to which courts are allowed to review arbitral awards for public policy violations in annulment or enforcement proceedings is a controversial topic. Recently, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) conducted an exhaustive judicial review of an award (referred to as a ‘Révision au fond’), assessing its potential breach of competition law within the framework of Germany’s public policy. This marks the first time in more than five decades that Germany’s highest civil court has taken an unambiguous stance in the ongoing discourse. Even though BGH decisions have no binding effect for lower courts in Germany, it can be expected that other German courts will follow the decision for the purpose of a uniform application of the law. This article analyses whether German courts should take the BGH’s decision as guidance and similarly conduct a Révision au fond of arbitral awards relating to competition law. It is concluded that the BGH’s decision is not in line with the internationally prevalent view that a Révision au fond is to be prohibited. Moreover, the justifications provided by the court for conducting a Révision au fond are found to be only partly convincing. In fact, there are several points in which the BGH’s approach can be countered by arguments in support of a merely limited review. Révision au fond, full review, competition law, antitrust, BGH, public policy, ordre public, cartel senate, finality of awards, Germany