A recent decision delivered by the Court of Appeal of Brescia (decision no. 71 of 19 January 2017, Italian text available here) lets us briefly examine Italian rules on setting aside of arbitral awards and, in particular, the grounds for setting aside under Article 829 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure.
A recent decision issued by the Court of first instance of Rome (no. 24195 of 28 December 2016, Italian text available here) gives us the chance to examine an interesting topic: that concerning the relationship between arbitration and order for payment.
If the Arbitral Tribunal issued a partial award on jurisdiction, should the parties immediately request its setting aside or may they await the issuance of the final award? A recent decision of the Italian Supreme Court sitting en banc (decision no. 23463 of 18 November 2016, Italian text available here) maintains that the request for setting aside of such a partial award shall be filed together with the request for setting aside of the final award.
Italian Arbitration Law, as amended in 2006, expressly provides for the parties to enter into an arbitration clause concerning their possible tort disputes. Indeed, Article 808(b) of Italian Code of Civil Procedure, as enacted by 2006 reform, sets forth that “The parties may establish, in a specific agreement, that future disputes relating to one or more specific non-contractual relations be decided by arbitrators (…).“
There are only a few reported cases concerning Article 808(b) of Italian Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore it appears that that tool is rarely used. Nonetheless, it could be very helpful: for instance, in the case of related actions, it could prevent the doctrine of “parallel paths” from applying.
A recent decision of the Italian Supreme Court (Supreme Court, VI Civil Chamber, decision no. 20673 of 13 October 2016, Italian text available here) deals with that matter. As far as I know, it is the first decision issued by the Italian Supreme Court concerning the construction of Article 808(b) of Italian Code of Civil Procedure.
It is the first time I comment on a non-Italian decision: it is a decision delivered by the High Court of England and Wales (Gerald Metals SA v. The Trustees of the Timis Trust & others  EWHC 2327 (Ch), available here). The decision concerns the relationship between interim jurisdiction of State Courts and Arbitral Tribunals and it remembered me of the doctrine of Italian State Courts in the few cases Italian Arbitral Tribunals have such a jurisdiction (that is, in the case of corporate arbitration).
A recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro (no. 1478 of 22 September 2016, Italian text available here) sums up the current doctrine of arbitrability of corporate disputes.
Corporate disputes are capable of arbitration, under Italian law, if they concern negotiable rights (Art. 34(1) of Legislative Decree no. 5 of 17 January 2003). Therefore, the question is: what does “negotiable rights” mean?
The Court of first instance of Florence established an interesting doctrine of arbitrability of corporate disputes, which is enunciated in a recent decision (no. 2906 of 8 September 2016, Italian text available here).
I already examined that doctrine (in this post); moreover, the issue of arbitrability of corporate disputes has often been mentioned on this blog (for instance, in this post, in this one and this one too).
A recent decision of the Court of first instance of Catania (decision no. 4041 of 19 July 2016, Italian text available here) focused on the relationship between corporate arbitration and interim measures and it is particularly interesting for its potential impact.
Italian Courts set forth peculiar rules concerning the assignment of the arbitration agreement in case of assignment of credit. In this respect, a recent decision issued by the Court of first instance of Milan (Court of first instance of Milan, VII Civil Chamber, decision no. 8379 of 5 July 2016, Italian text available here) is worth a mention.