The German arbitration related jurisprudence of the years 2007 and 2008 has contributed to the clarification of a number of important and disputed issues under the German version of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Inter alia has the German Supreme Court dealt with the question of the binding nature of arbitral awards and to what extent it is open to party autonomy. The Court came to the conclusion that parties can make the binding force of the arbitration award dependent on the fact that neither party starts court proceedings within a certain time. In so far it gave more space to party autonomy than the American Supreme Court in its Hall Street v. Matell-decision of about the same time. Moreover has the German Supreme Court established a kind of supremacy of the arbitration clause over forum selection clauses in case that the various documents relevant for a contractual relationship contain conflicting dispute resolution clauses. A more arbitration critical approach is adopted at least by the Higher Regional Courts in relation to arbitration clauses involving obviously weaker parties even outside the traditional consumer protection cases. Examples are small franchisees or commercial sales agents of major international companies. On several occasions and with different legal justifications have courts refused to enforce arbitration agreements or awards in cases where the arbitra tion agreement appeared to be too much in favour of the franchisor or the principal which imposed it. In all other cases challenges against arbitral awards or objections to their enforcement have rarely been successful. That applies in particular to the regularly alleged violation of the right to be heard. German courts have adopted a robust approach in this matter giving the arbitral Tribunal considerable leeway in its decision of how to conduct the proceedings and which evidence it considers relevant. The Supreme Court has, however, made clear that a preclusion of possible defences in proceedings to have foreign awards declared enforceable requires more than the mere lack of making use of remedies available against the award at the place of its rendition. Diverging decisions can still be found in relation to clauses which provide that disputes should be settled by arbitration in accordance with an arbitration clause to be concluded between the parties, the conclusion of which then is later forgotten. Despite the general trend to enforce also pathological arbitration agreements wherever a meaningful interpretation can be given to them, numerous courts have denied in such cases the existence of a binding arbitration agreement. As a general trend it can be discerned from the jurisprudence that arbitration has reached from its traditional fields of application to a number of new areas. Arbitration clauses can now be found in nearly all types of commercial contracts. They play a prominent role, in particular, in contracts setting up chambers of lawyers, accountants, doctors, engineers or architects.