A technology company based outside the EU secured a favourable commercial judgment in its home jurisdiction. Its German counterpart – a GmbH (limited liability company under German corporate law) – had refused to pay a substantial contractual debt. The foreign creditor assumed that obtaining a court order at home would be the hardest part. Enforcing that order in Germany proved far more demanding.
Foreign judgment enforcement in Germany requires formal recognition proceedings before the competent German civil court. The process turns on whether the originating court had proper jurisdiction, whether the judgment is final, and whether recognition would conflict with German public policy. Where an arbitral tribunal issued the award rather than a state court, Germany's obligations under the New York Convention govern the pathway.
This case study sets out how the matter was approached, which complications arose, and what transferable lessons emerge for any cross-border creditor seeking award enforcement in Germany.
Client profile and the legal challenge
The client was a mid-sized software services company incorporated outside the European Union. Its German counterpart had been registered in the Handelsregister (German Commercial Register) as a fully operational GmbH. The two parties had contracted under a master services agreement governed by the law of a third-country seat of arbitration.
Following a payment dispute, the client had initiated proceedings before an arbitral tribunal constituted under ICC Rules (International Chamber of Commerce arbitration rules). The tribunal issued a final award in the client's favour after approximately fourteen months. The German counterpart declined to comply voluntarily.
The client then approached Ferraz & Whitmore. Its immediate question was practical: could the ICC award be enforced directly against the GmbH's German bank accounts and receivables? The answer required working through two parallel legal regimes – Germany's civil procedure rules governing recognition of foreign state court judgments, and the distinct pathway available under the New York Convention for arbitral awards. Distinguishing between these two tracks at the outset proved decisive.
For related matters involving litigation and arbitration proceedings in Germany, the procedural distinctions between state court judgments and arbitral awards are equally important to understand before filing.
Legal strategy: choosing the right enforcement track
Germany is a signatory to the New York Convention framework on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Under that regime, a party holding a final arbitral award may apply directly to the competent German court. typically the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) at the seat of enforcement – for a declaration of enforceability. This is a materially different process from the recognition of a foreign state court judgment, which proceeds under civil procedure rules and involves a broader merits assessment.
The strategic decision to proceed under the New York Convention track rather than attempting to re-litigate the underlying merits was grounded in three factors. First, the ICC award was issued by a properly constituted tribunal at a recognised seat of arbitration. Second, the award was final and not subject to pending set-aside proceedings. Third, the German party had not raised any substantive public policy objection during the arbitration itself.
Counsel also assessed the GmbH's current status in the Handelsregister. An early check confirmed that no Insolvenzordnung (German insolvency legislation) proceedings had been opened against the entity. This mattered: had an insolvency administrator been appointed, the enforcement strategy would have shifted toward filing a claim in the insolvency schedule rather than pursuing direct enforcement against assets.
For creditors facing related cross-border disputes, our analysis of corporate disputes in Germany addresses how insolvency and enforcement proceedings interact when a German counterpart is in financial difficulty.
Key milestones and complications
The application for a declaration of enforceability was filed at the relevant Oberlandesgericht within six weeks of the client's initial instruction. The documentation package included the original ICC award, the arbitration agreement, certified translations into German, and an apostille on the originating procedural documents.
The first complication arose at the translation stage. German procedural rules require not merely a translation but a certified translation by a court-recognised translator. The client had initially obtained a translation from a general commercial translation service. That translation was rejected. Obtaining a replacement from a sworn translator added three weeks and additional cost to the timetable.
The second complication was substantive. The GmbH filed an objection arguing that the arbitral tribunal had lacked jurisdiction because the arbitration agreement was contained in a clause the counterpart characterised as not binding. This argument engaged the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice of Germany) case law on separability – the principle under which an arbitration clause survives a challenge to the validity of the main contract. The Oberlandesgericht applied the dominant position from that case law and rejected the jurisdictional objection. The declaration of enforceability was granted approximately four months after filing.
Once the declaration issued, enforcement proceedings moved to the Amtsgericht (local court of first instance) for asset attachment. Bank account garnishment orders were obtained within a further six weeks. The GmbH's receivables from a domestic sub-contractor were also attached as a precautionary measure.
Transferable lessons for cross-border creditors
Three lessons from this matter apply directly to any lawyer in Germany or international practitioner advising a foreign creditor in a comparable situation.
Lesson one: identify the correct enforcement track before filing anything. The New York Convention pathway for arbitral awards and the civil procedure rules pathway for foreign state court judgments are not interchangeable. Filing under the wrong regime wastes months. The threshold question – was the decision made by a state court or an arbitral tribunal? – determines everything that follows, including which court has jurisdiction over the recognition application.
Lesson two: treat document preparation as a substantive legal task. German courts apply formal requirements with precision. Certified translations, apostilles, and proper authentication of the original award are not administrative formalities. A defect in any one document suspends the entire application. Engaging a law firm Germany-side with direct experience of these requirements – rather than assembling documents from generic templates – materially reduces the risk of procedural rejection.
Lesson three: run a solvency check on the German entity at the very start. The Handelsregister and the relevant insolvency register are both publicly searchable. A GmbH that enters Insolvenzordnung proceedings after a declaration of enforceability is obtained, but before assets are attached, can shift the entire recovery into an insolvency distribution process. Early asset-tracing and prompt attachment – not a sequential approach – is the safer model in high-value matters.
A parallel consideration applies where the underlying dispute was resolved under UNCITRAL rules rather than ICC Rules. The recognition analysis is substantively similar, but procedural requirements for documenting the arbitral process differ. Counsel should verify that the award documentation satisfies German evidentiary standards regardless of which institutional rules governed the arbitration.
For comparable enforcement matters arising from judgments issued by Portuguese courts, our case study on foreign judgment enforcement in Portugal illustrates how the recognition process operates under a civil law system with EU-level procedural dimensions.
To discuss a foreign judgment or arbitral award enforcement matter in Germany, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our team combines Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to deliver cross-border legal solutions in arbitral award enforcement and foreign judgment recognition, including in Germany. We work with international entrepreneurs, institutional investors, and in-house legal teams who need results-oriented counsel across multiple legal systems. Our dispute resolution practice includes practitioners with experience before the ICC, LCIA, and comparable arbitral bodies, and we regularly support enforcement strategies before German civil courts. As a law firm in Germany-facing matters, we bring both the procedural precision that German courts require and the cross-border perspective that international creditors need. To explore legal options for award enforcement in Germany, schedule a consultation at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Author: Sophie Kellner
Author title: Partner, IP & Technology Law
Published: February 11, 2026