German Media Arbitration Court

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The German Media Arbitration Court (DMS) has its seat on the media campus of the city of Leipzig . As an institutionalized arbitration facility , it offers media professionals the option of flexible, rapid and economical settlement of disputes by experts. The idea was promoted by the Saxon State Chancellery .

Responsibilities

As a non-state court, the media arbitration tribunal acts after a call from a party to the dispute, provided there is a corresponding agreement between the parties to the dispute. This can be included as an arbitration clause in a contract right from the start or concluded ad hoc after a dispute has arisen.

The media arbitration tribunal deals exclusively with media law disputes, which are very broadly defined by the arbitration rules. All institutions and people involved in the development, production and distribution of media content for information and entertainment purposes are addressed. At least one direct party to the dispute must be a media creator in this sense. The court is expressly not responsible for copyright disputes about the amount of equipment and other charges in accordance with §§ 54 ff. UrhG .

Procedure

There are three different procedures to choose from before the German Media Arbitration Court:

Arbitration

As a classic litigation procedure, arbitration is an alternative to state court proceedings . In a chamber with three, five or in the Senate with seven arbitrators , the parties can bring about an arbitration award on their dispute. The arbitrators are bound by the requests of the parties. The parties are again bound by the decision of the arbitral tribunal in accordance with § 1059 ZPO , if the possibility of invoking a state court after the arbitration proceedings have not already been effectively agreed in the arbitration agreement.

Arbitration

With far greater freedom for the arbitrators, the parties to the dispute can also appeal to the media arbitration tribunal for arbitration. At the request of a party to the dispute and the consent of the other party, the designated arbitrators are obliged to assist the parties in an impartial and independent manner in resolving their dispute. For this purpose, parties and arbitrators can make suggestions at any stage of the proceedings.

Arbitration report

The parties to the dispute can also obtain an expert opinion from the media arbitration tribunal, e.g. B. on a question of the interpretation of a joint contract. The expert judgment of the judges is binding.

General

The value of the dispute before the media arbitration court should not be less than 100,000 euros . Disputes below this threshold are accepted if they are of corresponding importance for media law.

In all proceedings, the parties to the dispute are largely free to set up the panel and determine the rules of procedure. The arbitration rules are understood here as a framework or as a specification if and to the extent that the parties cannot agree on points, e.g. B. The judges and the substitute members of the panel can be determined by the parties themselves, or by the president of the media arbitration tribunal at their own discretion. The parties involved can also use English as the language of the proceedings.

Decisive for the nature of arbitration and also formative for proceedings before the media arbitration tribunal, every proceeding is conducted confidentially and not publicly.

founding

The media arbitration court was created on the initiative of the Free State of Matters. The sponsoring association of the German Media Arbitration Court was founded on September 1, 2016 in Leipzig. It includes:

The association is open as members in particular to scientific institutions, associations, foundations, broadcasters, network operators, publishers, online providers, online bloggers, social media and other companies in the media, film, music and rights trading industries.

The German Media Arbitration Court has existed as an institution since January 1st, 2017. It is nationally unique.

organization

As an institutionalized arbitration tribunal, the media arbitration tribunal provides the parties with experienced experts as arbitrators to choose from for the respective proceedings. These are independent experts in at least one sub-area of ​​media law. Independence is safeguarded by the prohibition to exercise a significant political function, to hold a stake in a media company with more than 0.5% of the nominal value of the company and to be a member or organ of a member of the sponsoring association.

The arbitrators are nominated for four years by the general assembly and, if necessary, selected by the parties for a single arbitration. The arbitrators elect a president and a vice-president from among their number for a period of four years. The president is the Leipzig lawyer Christian Berger as the successor to the late Rüdiger sons.

President

  • Rüdiger Sons (Founding President)
  • Christian Berger (from 12/2017)

Procedure

On September 17, 2017, Focus online reported on the basis of a DPA report that the DMS had not yet been able to settle any disputes between media actors. Almuth Buschmann, head of the office, said that the DMS was not surprised in this regard, because "institutionalized arbitration courts are only called when arbitration clauses have been incorporated into contracts."

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ 21 honorary judges: The German Media Arbitration Court in Leipzig is to settle the first cases in 2017. Leipziger Volkszeitung from September 1, 2016; accessed on December 31, 2017.
  2. ^ Arbitration Rules of the German Media Arbitration Court. Retrieved November 2, 2017 .
  3. ↑ a b German Media Arbitration Court starts its work in Leipzig. Leipziger Volkszeitung , December 30, 2016.
  4. ↑ The German Media Arbitration Court should settle the first cases in 2017. Süddeutsche Zeitung , September 1, 2016.
  5. ↑ Both parties have to reach an arbitration agreement with Deutschlandfunk
  6. ↑ German Media Arbitration Court is taking shape
  7. ↑ German Media Arbitration Court still without trial. Focus online, September 17, 2017.