Complete List of Publications in English Language
|
| Monographies |
| 1. |
Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, The Hague/London/New York, Kluwer Law International 2003, 953 pages (jointly with Lew/Mistelis)
|
| Editor |
| 1. |
Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes – Procedural and Substantive Legal Aspects, Kluwer Law International, 2004, 535 pages (Assistant Editor – Editor: Prof. Horn) |
| 2. |
Arbitration in Germany – The Model Law in Practice, Kluwer Law International 2007, 1223 Seiten (jointly with Böckstiegel/Nacimiento)
|
| 3. |
Conflict of Laws in Arbitration, Sellier 2010, 464 pages (jointly with Ferrari)
|
| Forthcoming |
The UN-Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods – A commentary, Beck International/Hart Publishing, 2010, about 1500 pages (jointly with Mistelis/Perales di Viscacellas)
|
| Commentaries |
| 1. |
Commentary on § 1059 ZPO (jointly with Kraft) in: Böckstiegel/Kröll/Nacimiento (eds), Arbitration in Germany, p. 436-478, Kluwer Law International 2007 |
| 2. |
Commentary on §§ 1060, 1061, in: Böckstiegel/Kröll/Nacimiento (eds), Arbitration in Germany, S.479-572, Kluwer Law International 2007
|
| Forthcoming |
Commentary on Arts 35 – 44 CISG, in: Mistelis/Perales di Viscacellas, The UN-Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods – A commentary, Beck International/Hart Publishing, 2010,
|
| Contribution to books |
| 1. |
Future Perspectives of Conflicts Mandatory Rules in International Contracts, in: Böckstiegel (ed.), Perspectives of Air Law, Space Law, and International Business Law for the Next Century, Köln, Berlin, Bonn, München 1997, p. 87-105. |
| 2. |
Electronic Bank Guarantees and Stand-by Letters of Credit, in Norbert Horn (ed) Legal Issues in Electronic Banking, 2002, p. 287-306. |
| 3. |
The Renegotiation and Adaptation of Investment Contracts, in Horn/Kröll (eds). Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes, Kluwer Law International, 2004, p. 425-470. |
| 4. |
Bank related instruments to secure the right to arbitration despite the impecuniousness of a party, in DIS (ed). Financial Capacity of the Parties – A Condition for the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement?, Peter Lang Verlag 2004, p. 151-164 |
| 5. |
Arbitration and Insolvency Proceedings – Selected Problems, in Mistelis/Lew (eds.), Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration, Kluwer Law International 2006, p. 357-376. |
| 6. |
„Arbitration“ in Smits (ed.), Encyclopedia of International Comparative Law, Elgar 2006, p. 134 – 153. |
| 7. |
Country Report Germany, in ICCA International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2007, 70 pages |
| 8. |
ermany as a Place for International and Domestic Arbitrations – General Overview (jointly with Böckstiegel/Nacimiento), in Böckstiegel/Kröll/Nacimiento (eds), Arbitration in Germany – The Model Law in Practice, p. 3-71, Kluwer Law International 2007, |
| 9. |
The „incapable of being performed“ exception in Art. II (3) of the New York Convention, in Gaillard/Di Pietro (eds), Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards – The New York Convention in Practice, Cameron May 2008, p. 323 – 353. |
| 10. |
The “arbitrability” of disputes arising from commercial representation, in: Mistelis/Brekoulakis (ed.) Arbitrability: International & Comparative Perspectives, Kluwer 2009, p. 317 – 350.
|
| 11. |
Arbitration and Insolvency – Selected conflict of laws problems, in: Ferrari/Kröll (ed.), Conflict of Laws in Arbitration, Sellier 2010, p. 211 - 253
|
| Articles |
1.
|
Contractual gap-filling by arbitration tribunals, International Arbitration Law Review 1999, p. 9-16. |
2.
|
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Germany, International Arbitration Law Review 2002, p. 160-177. |
3.
|
The German Law on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 18 (3) Mealey’s International Arbitration Report 2003.
|
| 4. |
Recourse against negative decisions on jurisdiction, Arbitration International 2004, p. 55-72.
|
| 5. |
Art. VII of N.Y. Convention and the need to produce an arbitration agreement – recent developments in German Law, 19 (4) Mealey’s IAR p. 27-33 (2004) (jointly with Wenzel). |
| 6. |
Setting aside proceedings in Model Law jurisdictions – Selected procedural and substantive questions from the case law, International Arbitration Law Review 2005, p. 170-179. |
| 7. |
Protecting Shareholders in Investment Law: To pierce or not to pierce the veil, that is the question! Stockholm Arbitration Report 2005 Issue 2, p. 93-114 (jointly with Griebel). |
| 8. |
Selected problems concerning the CISG’s scope of application, 25 Journal of Law and Commerce (2006), p. 39-58. |
| 9. |
20 Year UNCITRAL Model Law: Selected problems of the arbitration agreement in light of the jurisprudence; 21 (10) Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, 2006, S. 33-49 (jointly with Heidkamp) |
| 10. |
“Pathological” arbitration agreements before German Courts – short notes on the occurrence of a recent decision by the Higher Regional Court Hamm, IHR 2006, p. 255-259 |
| 11. |
10 Year UNCITRAL Model Law in Germany – Taking Stock, World Arbitration and Mediation Report 2007, p. 439 – 483 (jointly with Kraft) |
| 12. |
First Experiences” with the new Austrian Arbitration Law – A German perspective, Arb Int 2007, p. 453 – 471. |
| 13. |
The principle of good faith in enforcement of foreign awards – the taming of another „unruly horse“ in German law (gemeinsam mit Marenkov), SIAR 1/2009
|
| Case notes |
| 1. |
German Supreme Court: Missed Deadline Does not Bar Defendant From Invoking Existence of Arbitration Clause, Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, 4/2002 p. 25-28 |
| 2. |
Naumburg Higher Regional Court Offers ‘Good Example’ of How German Arbitration Law Balances Party’s Needs And Protects Arbitral Process, Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, 6/2002, p. 27-34 |
| 3. |
Party pursuing bias claim against arbitrator must do so at place of Arbitration, German Supreme Court Rules, Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, 8/2002, p. 34-38 |
| 4. |
Beurkundung gesellschaftsrechtlicher Vorgänge durch einen ausländischen Notar, ZGR 2000, S.111-151
|
| Case Summaries with short comment |
| 1. |
Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 4 Z Sch 23/99 – 15.12.1999, Int.A.L.R 2000/6 N-69 (with Hennecke). |
| 2. |
Kammergericht Berlin, 28 Sch 17/99 – 15.10.1999, Int.A.L.R 2000/6 N-70 (with Hoßdorf). |
| 3. |
Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, 6 Sch 2/99 – 23.3.2000, Int.A.L.R 2001/4 N-25 (with Hoßdorf). |
| 4. |
Higher Regional Court Bremen, 2 Sch 4/99 – 30.9.1999, Int.A.L.R 2001/4 N-25 (with Hennecke). |
| 5. |
Federal Supreme Court, II ZR 373/98 – 3.4.2000, Int.A.L.R. 2002/2 N-10 (with Hennecke). |
| 6. |
Federal Supreme Court, III ZR 33/00 – 14.9.2000, Int.A.L.R. 2002/2 N-11 (with Hoßdorf) |
| 7. |
Federal Supreme Court, III ZR 55/99 – 2.11.2000, Int.A.L.R. 2002/2 N-12 (with Hennecke). |
| 8. |
Higher Regional Court Brandenburg, 8 SchH 1/00 – 26.6.2000, Int.A.L.R 2002/2 N-13. |
| 9. |
OLG Rostock, 1 Sch 3/2000 – 22.11.2001, Int.A.L.R 2002/3 N-31. |
| 10. |
Bavarian Highest Regional Court, 4 Z SchH 13/99 – 28.2.2000, Int.A.L.R 2002/4 N-41 (with Heidkamp). |
| 11. |
Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 4 Z Sch 2/00 – 12.4.2000, Int.A.L.R. 2003/2 N-11 (with Heidkamp). |
| 12. |
Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 4 Z Sch 16/02 – 12.12.2002 , Int.A.L.R. 2003/3 N-27 |
| 13. |
Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, 11 Sch 6/01 –24.1.2003, Int.A.L.R. 2003/4 N-33 |
| 14. |
Higher Regional Court Celle, 8 Sch 3/01 –2.10.2001 – Bundesgerichtshof, III ZB 6/02 –30.1.2003, Int.A.L.R. 2003/6 N-59 |
| 15. |
Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken, 4 Sch 2/02 –29.110.2002, Int.A.L.R. 2003/6 N-60 |
| 16. |
Bundesgerichtshof, III ZB 68/02 – 25.9.2003, Int.A.L.R. 2004/2 N-20 |
| 17. |
Oberlandesgericht Celle, 8 Sch 11/02 –4.9.2002, Int.A.L.R. 2004/2 N-21 |
| 18. |
Supreme Court, III ZB 83/02 –27.3.2003, Int.A.L.R. 2004/2 N-23 |
| 19. |
OLG Frankfurt, 10 U 75/03 – 30.1.2004, Int.A.L.R. 2004/4 N-52 |
| 20. |
Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 4 Z Sch 22/03 – 16.1.2004, Int.A.L.R. 2004/4 N-53 |
| 21. |
Higher Regional Court Celle, 8 Sch 2/03 –20.11.2003, Int.A.L.R. 2004/5 N-58 |
| 22. |
Kammergericht Berlin, 23 Sch 01/02 - 6.5.2002, Int.A.L.R. 2004/6 N-71 |
| 23. |
Higher Regional Court Cologne, 9 Sch 20/03 –22.4.2004, Int.A.L.R. 2005/1 N 4 (with Heidkamp) |
| 24. |
Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 4Z SchH – 5.10.2004, Int.A.L.R. 2005/4 N-47 |
| 25. |
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, 1 Sch 16/02 and 6/03 – 14.10.2003, Int.A.L.R. 2005/4 N-48 (with Kraft) |
| 26. |
Oberlandesgericht Celle 8 Sch 12/02 – 12 September 2003, Int.A.L.R. 2005/4 N-51 (with Heidkamp) |
| 27. |
Oberlandesgericht Hamm, 27.09.05 - 29 Sch 1/05, Int.A.L.R. 2006/1 N- 5 (with Kraft) |
| 28. |
Bundesgerichtshof, 27.05.04 – III ZB 53/03, Int.A.L.R. 2006/1 N- 7 |
| 29. |
Bundesgerichtshof, 24.02.05 – III ZB 36/04, Int.A.L.R. 2006/1 N- 9 |
| 30. |
Bundesgerichtshof, 21.09.05 – III ZB 18/05, Int.A.L.R. 2006/3 N-24 |
| 31. |
Bundesgerichtshof, 23.02.06 – III ZB 50/05, Int.A.L.R. 2006/5 N-59 |
| 32. |
Oberlandesgericht Naumburg, 21.05.04 – 10 Sch 6/03, Int.A.L.R. 2006/5 N-61 |
| 33. |
OLG Bremen, 24.05.06 – 2 Sch 2/06, Int.A.L.R. 2006/6 N-65 (with Marenkov) |
| 34. |
OLG Bremen, 10.11.05 – 2 Sch 2/05, Int.A.L.R. 2007/2 N-18 (with Marenkov) |
| 35. |
OLG Bremen, 28.06.06 – 2 Sch 3/06, Int.A.L.R. 2007/2 N-20 |
| 36. |
OLG Köln, 24.04.06 – 9 Sch 15/05, Int.A.L.R. 2007/3 N-33 |
| 37. |
OLG München, 05.07.06 – 34 SchH 05/06, Int.A.L.R. 2007/4 N-47 |
| 38. |
OLG Hamburg, 08.05.06 – 6 SchH 01/06, Int.A.L.R. 2007/4 N-48 |
| 39. |
OLG Hamburg, 23.05.06 – 6 SchH 04/06, Int.A.L.R. 2007/4 N-50
|
| 40. |
OLG Frankfurt, 20.07.07 – 26 Sch 03/06, Int.A.L.R. 2008/1 N-9 |
| 41. |
Bundesgerichtshof, 25.01.07 – III ZR 105/06, Int.A.L.R. 2008/1 N-11 |
| 42. |
OLG Karlsruhe,04.04.2007 – 1 U 232/06, Int.A.L.R. 2008/2 N-25 |
| 43. |
KG Berlin, 17.04.2008 – 20 Sch 2/08, Int.A.L.R. 2009/1 N-7# |
| 44. |
Bundesgerichtshof, 29.01.2009 – III ZB 88/07, Int.A.L.R. 2009/3 N-38 |
| 45. |
Bundesgerichtshof, 16.01.2009 – V ZR 133/08, eJccl 2009/2 p. 100f |
