An arbitration clause contained in condominium regulations must be interpreted, absent contrary intention, in the sense that all cases where the regulations may represent a constitutive fact of the claim or having causes of action connected with operation of the regulations themselves fall within arbitral jurisdiction.
Referral to arbitrators of any dispute connected to interpretation and performance of condominium regulations determines arbitral jurisdiction also for opposition to payment orders served by the administrator for collection of contributions approved by the assembly, the arbitration clause not constituting a derogation from relevant rules.
Existence of an arbitration clause does not exclude ordinary court jurisdiction to issue a payment order, but requires it, in case of subsequent opposition based on existence of the clause, to order referral of the dispute to arbitrators' judgment in regular arbitration, or declare unenforceability of the claim in contractual arbitration and, in any case, declaration of nullity of the opposed decree.
The objection alleging existence of an arbitration clause for contractual arbitration does not raise a question of judicial authority jurisdiction, but challenges enforceability of the claim because the contracting parties chose contractual resolution of the dispute, renouncing jurisdictional protection. This objection therefore has substantive nature and introduces a preliminary question of merit.