A. Introduction
Can a foreign arbitral award signed exclusively by means of qualified electronic signatures be declared enforceable in Germany? The Bavarian Highest Regional Court (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, BayObLG) answered this question in the affirmative in a decision of 27 March 2026 (case no. 102 Sch 104/25 e).
The Court held that enforcement of a foreign arbitral award may not be refused merely because the arbitrators signed electronically rather than by hand, provided the procedural law governing the arbitration permits digital signatures and the authenticity of the award is sufficiently established. In reaching this conclusion, the Court applied the most-favourable-treatment principle under Article VII(1) of the New York Convention (NYC), relying on the more enforcement-friendly formal requirements of German national law (§ 1064 ZPO).
B. Background
The case arose from a share purchase agreement concluded in May 2022 between a Czech seller and a Bavarian-based buyer. Following a dispute over the buyer’s failure to perform certain post-closing obligations, the seller initiated arbitration before the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber and the Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic in Prague. By award dated 4 April 2025, the tribunal partially upheld the claim.
The award was signed digitally by the three arbitrators on 15, 16 and 24 April 2025 respectively, using qualified electronic signatures. Before the German court, the claimant initially submitted a paper version bearing only the signature of the tribunal’s secretary, without visible traces of the arbitrators‘ digital signatures. Upon the court’s request, the claimant subsequently filed the digital original, which contained the verifiable electronic signatures of all three arbitrators. The electronic signature verification protocol available in the court’s own system confirmed their authenticity.
C. The Court’s Reasoning
The respondent argued that the award was formally invalid because the paper version lacked the arbitrators‘ signatures and the dates of the digital signatures did not match the date stated in the award.
The BayObLG rejected both objections.
First, the Court applied the most-favourable-treatment principle under Article VII(1) NYC: since the party seeking enforcement may rely on the more favourable requirements of the enforcement state’s law, the relevant standard was § 1064(1) and (3) ZPO. German law requires submission of the original award or a certified copy but imposes no additional formal requirements such as legalisation. This provision is, moreover, treated as a rule of evidence rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite.
Second, the Court observed that the NYC contains no prohibition on the electronic conduct of arbitral proceedings, including the issuance of awards signed with qualified electronic signatures — a practice now widely established in international arbitration. While the question of whether German domestic arbitral awards may be signed electronically under § 1054(1) ZPO remains debated in academic literature, this debate is irrelevant for the enforcement of foreign awards. What matters is whether the award complies with the procedural law governing the arbitration.
Third, on compliance with the applicable procedural law, the Court noted that the respondent had not argued that Czech law or the tribunal’s own rules prohibited digitally signed awards. The Prague Arbitration Court even offers fully online proceedings on its website. Moreover, the Prague City Court, in dismissing the respondent’s application to set aside the award, had raised no concerns about formal validity.
Fourth, the divergence between the award date (4 April 2025) and the signature dates (15, 16 and 24 April 2025) was held to be unproblematic. The Court drew an analogy to the practice of German state courts, where a judgment may be pronounced at the end of a hearing and the written reasons signed thereafter.
D. Practical Significance
The decision removes a significant source of uncertainty for international arbitration practitioners. Parties and arbitral institutions can now rely on the proposition that a foreign arbitral award signed with qualified electronic signatures will not be refused enforcement in Germany on formal grounds, provided the applicable procedural law permits digital signatures and authenticity can be verified. The ruling aligns German enforcement practice with the broader international trend towards digitalisation of arbitral proceedings and reflects the pro-enforcement orientation that characterises German jurisprudence under the New York Convention.