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.
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.
The Supreme Court addressed the arbitrability of disputes between companies and directors concerning the directors’ remuneration (decision no. 2759 of 11 February 2016 of the I Civil Chamber, Italian text available here).
I find interesting a recent ruling of the Italian Supreme Court (order no. 1119 of 21 January 2016, VI Civil Chamber, Italian text available here), which dealt with the issue of arbitrability. In fact, the Supreme Court’s reasoning in that case (concerning the extent of disputes which may be referred to common arbitration) differs from the reasoning of Supreme Court in cases of corporate arbitration.
A recent ruling of the Court of first instance of Rome (decision no. 25936 of 30 December 2015, Italian text available here) brings up the issue of the arbitrability of corporate disputes, in particular those relating to the challenge of resolutions of company’s general meetings.
The Supreme Court recently ruled on an interesting matter. The case dealt with the consequences of the prohibition to undertake or continue economic transactions with a sovereign State (a State under embargo), with respect to an arbitration clause stipulated in an agreement previously entered into with the embargoed State.
The Italian full text of decision no. 23893 of the Supreme Court sitting en banc of 24 November 2015 is available here.
An arbitration clause stipulates that all the disputes arising out of the agreement may be referred to an Arbitral Tribunal. Is that an optional arbitration, in the sense that the claimant may choose between the Court and the Arbitral Tribunal? Does the jurisdiction exclusively rest with the Arbitral Tribunal? Or is it a void or ineffective arbitration clause?
I already talked about this issue in this article, when analysing an order rendered by the Court of first instance of Milan. Recent rulings of the I Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Bologna (decision no. 1884 of 12 November 2015, Italian text available here) and the VI Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (decision no. 22039 of 28 October 2015, Italian text available here) have shed light on this issue again.
It is quite usual that, when inserting an arbitration clause in an agreement, a party would like to preserve its right to file with the Court a request for a payment order (which is an ex parte order). The purpose would be to attain a temporarily enforceable payment order, since it would be an effective and fast solution to protect its rights.
Nonetheless, the outcomes of such choice could be different from those expected. The VI Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its order no. 21666 of 23 October 2015 (Italian text available here), analysed the possible consequences.
A recent judgment of the Supreme Court (decision no. 18707 of 22 September 2015, Italian text available here) dealt with a very peculiar case. A party objected that an arbitration clause was unenforceable, since it included an additional preposition (more precisely the preposition “di”, which in Italian means "of").
In this case, the Supreme Court, as well as the Court of first instance, avoided a formalistic excess. The Court did not repeat the old case, referred to by Gaius, in which a party lost the case due to a lexical mistake.
The Court of first instance of Rome (decision no. 19215 of 28 September 2015, Italian text available here) ruled in a complex case concerning the relationship between a limited liability company and its former director. First of all, the company sued the former director before the Court, claiming his liability. In a second case (the case of the decision at hand), the former director requested the Court to issue a payment order against the company, in order to obtain the amounts allegedly owed to him. The parties did not take into account the arbitration clause stipulated in Article 26 of the Articles of association. This provision notes that “all controversies arising among the quotaholders or among the quotaholders and the company, the directors, liquidators and statutory auditors shall be settled by a sole arbitrator appointed by the President of the Certified Public Accountants Register of the place where the company has its registered office (….).” In the judicial proceedings commenced by the company, the former director objected that the Court did not have jurisdiction, due to the above mentioned arbitration clause. On its turn, the company raised this objection when challenging the payment order issued in favour of the former director.
Did the parties waive their right to arbitrate, by initiating Court proceedings?