Skip to content
Perspectives

ReferenceInternational Business Law

Commercial Courts in Germany

Germany’s new Commercial Courts hear major commercial disputes in English. Jurisdiction, advantages, and how to compare them to international arbitration.

Peter Poleacov15 min

Commercial Courts in Germany

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? This article walks through the main advantages and the jurisdictional reach, and shows when going to the new courts is the right call.

What are the Commercial Courts and why were they introduced?

The Commercial Courts are specialized chambers at German Regional Courts (Landgerichte) and Higher Regional Courts (Oberlandesgerichte) that hear large commercial disputes. 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: the whole proceedings can be conducted in English.

What the Commercial Courts offer

English as the language of proceedings

International contracts and business communication often run 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) GVG).

Even the Federal Court of Justice can continue the proceedings in English if the parties ask for it and the panel agrees (Section 184b GVG).

Specialised judges and faster procedure

The judges at the Commercial Courts have demonstrable expertise in international business law. The act also provides for streamlined and digital procedural steps to enable faster decisions.

Protection of trade secrets

Trade-secret protection during the proceedings is reinforced by Section 273a ZPO. The court can now classify information at issue as requiring confidentiality if it qualifies as a trade secret.

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 timing of the proceedings, unless substantive or organizational reasons stand against it. This is meant to make the proceedings more efficient and has long proven itself in arbitration as the case-management conference (see, for example, Annex 3 to the DIS Arbitration Rules). From my own experience as a commercial lawyer with more than 18 years of litigation, this is a very welcome step.

On the parties’ application, a readable verbatim transcript can be produced under Section 613 ZPO.

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 sharpest 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: a purely written procedure in which the amount at stake has to exceed EUR 20,000 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.

For drafting, one constellation follows clearly. Where both sides expect the dispute to 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: two instances instead of three, with no leave requirement.1

Which disputes fall within the Commercial Courts’ jurisdiction?

The Commercial Courts have first-instance jurisdiction for:

  1. civil disputes between businesses, except matters of industrial property, copyright, and claims under the Unfair Competition Act;

  2. disputes arising from or in connection with the acquisition of a company or shares in a company; and

  3. disputes between a company and members of its management or supervisory board.

The Commercial Court’s jurisdiction can be limited to specific subject areas. It can also be extended 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 requires no international element. Neither the parties nor the subject matter have to be international; a purely domestic commercial dispute belongs before the Commercial Court as well, provided the subject area and the amount in dispute fit.1

How you get to the Commercial Court

Jurisdiction does not arise by itself. There are three routes, and only the first is entirely in your hands:

  1. A jurisdiction clause in the contract. The clean 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.
  2. An ad hoc agreement after the dispute has arisen. Both sides agree once things are already tense. Rare in practice: a party that expects an advantage from its home court will not consent.
  3. Referral under Section 611 ZPO. Proceedings already pending before a Regional Court move to the Commercial Court. This too requires both sides: 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.

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, and it is also what the Hague Convention requires, 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.2

One more switch is in your hands: choosing the Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court or the Commercial Chamber at the Regional Court decides whether you get two instances or three.3

If you want the Commercial Court, put it in the contract. If you count on agreeing later, 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 here.

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

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, and maritime trade

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

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, one-year record of 26 January 2026

Lower Saxony

  • Commercial Court at the Higher Regional Court of Celle, since 15 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) will be 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 land lease and tenancy, banking law, and corporate law (Section 7 SächsJOrgVO)

Saxony departs from every other state on three points, and each one matters for your clause. There are no Commercial Chambers at the Regional Courts. Proceedings before the Commercial Court Dresden cannot be conducted in English; Saxony is the only state that 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.

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

One year on: the record

The figures pull apart depending on where you look. Graf von Westphalen obtained the case numbers for the Commercial Courts at the Higher Regional Courts and arrives at 16 proceedings nationwide for the period from 1 April 2025 (IWRZ 2026). 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 none so far. For Frankfurt and Hamburg, he expressly reports that none of the proceedings was conducted in English.

Hesse reports something entirely different for the same period. 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.

The contradiction dissolves once you separate the two types of panel. Westphalen counts the Commercial Courts at the Higher Regional Courts, that is, the new first-instance entry point. Hesse counts the Commercial Court and the Commercial Chambers together, and the chambers sit at the Regional Courts. That is where the volume is; the ministry gives no precise breakdown. 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. The Stuttgart chambers, however, have existed since November 2020, long before the act. What works there is not the new act, it is 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 several other courts 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. The chain of instances deserves a closer look: before a Commercial Court at a Higher Regional Court there are two instances instead of three, because the Regional Court as the court of first instance falls away. That is offset by shorter proceedings, the particular qualification 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 is highly restrictive on this. Conversely, only state courts can impose coercive measures, for instance to compel a witness to appear. 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.2 How document production actually works in arbitration is shown in the article “Obtaining evidence in the US for international arbitration”.

On experience, arbitration is ahead: the institutions have been running proceedings for decades, while the new panels at the Higher Regional Courts have barely seen any.

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 exactly what you should be doing anyway: an exclusive choice of court agreement. Writing the Commercial Court into the contract therefore also improves recognition of the later judgment. As of 27 November 2025, the Convention counts 39 contracting parties, including, alongside the EU, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Mexico, Singapore, Ukraine, Montenegro, and Albania. It does not solve the problem, though: the United States and China have signed but not ratified. Where your counterparty sits there, the old finding stands, and the arbitration clause keeps its edge.4

A careful weighing of the pros and cons is essential.

Conclusion

The instrument is right, the implementation does not yet carry everywhere. The legislator created the framework that internationally active business has been asking for over years. What is being taken up so far is the familiar level, the specialized chamber at the Regional Court. The actual change of system, a commercial dispute heard in first instance at the Higher Regional Court, is still waiting for its cases.

The obstacles are known. The 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 comes a point no act can solve: a panel without case practice competes with arbitral institutions that have been running proceedings for decades.

For your contracts, that means the Commercial Court is an option, not the default. It pays off where the counterparty is based in Germany or the EU, so the enforcement problem does not arise, 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.

Notes

  1. 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. ↩ ↩2

  2. Fay/Shingler/Kleinschmitt, Einführung von englischsprachigen Commercial Courts, RIW 2025, 93 (94, 96 f.), 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. ↩ ↩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. ↩

  4. 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/