One of the most persistent assumptions in commercial contracting is that arbitration is faster than litigation. 

Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it is not. The better answer is that speed depends on the process design, the parties’ behaviour, the tribunal, and whether one looks only at the merits phase or at the dispute’s full lifecycle. First-instance German court proceedings may move quite quickly, but arbitration can vary significantly by institution and complexity. Annulment applications/ Setting aside proceedings, even when unsuccessful, can add time and cost after the award.

Arbitration does have real tools for engineering speed. Both the 2018 DIS Rules (Article 27) and the 2026 ICC Rules (Article 23) impose general efficiency duties. Expedited proceedings are available under both regimes: the DIS provides expedited proceedings, and the final award in that regime is to be rendered no later than six months after conclusion of the case management conference (Annex 4 to the 2018 DIS Rules); under the 2026 ICC Rules, Article 32, in conjunction with Appendix V, provides for expedited proceedings. The ICC Expedited Procedure applies automatically below certain thresholds, unless excluded, or by party agreement (Article 32 ICC). Under the 2026 ICC Rules, the threshold has been raised to USD4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. In addition, the 2026 ICC Rules introduce a new Highly Expedited Arbitration mechanism (Article 33 of the 2026 ICC Rules, together with Appendix VI), available only by agreement of all parties, with a sole arbitrator and a three-month time limit for the final award. These are serious instruments, not marketing slogans. 

At the same time, arbitration also has its own timing risks: tribunal constitution, jurisdictional disputes, challenge motions, broad document production, and expert-heavy proceedings can all erode the efficiency advantage.

Litigation, by contrast, may move in a more standardised way, but the possibility of appeal under German civil procedure also means the first-instance judgment is often not the end of the story.

The practical question is therefore not “arbitration or litigation – which is faster?” The question is whether this dispute, with this value, this evidence profile, and this likely post-award or post-judgment behaviour, can be designed to move efficiently.

Key takeaway 

Speed is not something a company buys merely by choosing arbitration – it is something the clause and the process have to be built to deliver.

German Disputes Bites series

We hope you are enjoying our series of blogs on Litigation vs Arbitration. This series will cover different aspects of the choice between a litigation or arbitration forum. Previous posts in the series:

• German Disputes Bites – Arbitration vs Litigation: confidentiality doesn’t make a dispute invisible

• German Disputes Bites – Arbitration vs Litigation: deciding who decides?

• German Disputes Bites – Arbitration vs Litigation: tribunal choice is key strategic phase

• German Disputes Bites – Arbitration vs Litigation: procedural flexibility is an advantage if managed

• German Disputes Bites – Arbitration vs Litigation: choosing the right forum for enforcement

• German Disputes Bites – Arbitration vs Litigation: Arbitration gets messy when dispute is not bilateral