Separability presumption

Separability presumption is universally applied, as the relevant doctrine spread all over the world during the first half of XX century.

In the words of Italian lawmakers, “The validity of the arbitration clause must be evaluated independently of the underlying contract” (Article 808, para. 2, of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure).

The oldest decisions laying down the doctrine of separability were issued by German Courts at the turn of XIX century: for example, German Supreme Court, in its decision 30 April 1890, stated that invalidity of the underlying contract does not entail, as an inevitable consequence, invalidity of the arbitration clause; applying this principle, Nuremberg Court of Appeal affirmed the jurisdiction of an Arbitral Tribunal to assess the validity of a contract (decision of 24 May 1909), and a similar decision was issued by Dresden Court of Appeal (decision of 11 January 1912). German Courts were nevertheless reluctant to apply separability presumption in cases of invalidity of the underlying contract due to its illegality (as in the case of some gambling contracts: see German Supreme Court, decision of 18 May 1904).

Meanwhile, separability presumption was also gaining ground in Switzerland and the relevant doctrine was affirmed by Swiss Federal Court in its decisions of 22 October 1881, 3 October 1913 and 5 March 1915. That doctrine is clearly stated as early as 1933: “The invalidity of the main contract does not render immediately the arbitration clause contained therein invalid; the clause according to which disputes arising under the main contract shall be submitted to arbitration encompasses, in cases of doubt, also disputes relating to the validity and the objection of simulation” (Swiss Federal Court, decision of 7 October 1933).

After Second World War and more recently, separability doctrine became widespread. For example, it was recognised by 1958 New York Convention, 1976 UNCITRAL Model Law, 1980 reform of French Code of Civil Procedure (although the said reform enacted principles already laid down by French case law) and 1996 English Arbitration Act.

As far as Italian jurisdiction is concerned, at the beginning of XX century preponderant scholars’ opinion and case law was that Arbitral Tribunals did not have jurisdiction over disputes concerning the validity of the underlying contract, since the invalidity of that contract would also lead to the invalidity of the arbitration clause: “questioning the existence or validity of the contract that includes the clause, the very jurisdiction of arbitrators is questioned” (Codovilla, Del compromesso e del giudizio arbitrale, Torino, 1915, p. 344; also see Mattirolo, Trattato di diritto giudiziario civile, V ed., Torino, 1932, p. 761 and Amar, Dei giudizi arbitrali, Torino, 1868, p. 157). In the same years, similar arguments were used, for example, under English law (see the decision of the House of Lords of 20 February 1942, Heyman v. Darwins Ltd).

Amongst Italian scholars, a dissenting voice was raised by Carnelutti (Clausola compromissoria e competenza degli arbitri, critical note to Court of Venice, 4 August 1920, on Riv. Dir. Comm., 1921, II, p. 327 ss.).

The learned author, first of all, underlined the ambiguity of the term “clause” contained in the phrase “arbitration clause”.

In the most common sense, a clause is a part of an agreement, which follows its fate, as the part follows the fate of the whole. The arbitration clause, on the other hand, is a clause in the sense that it is an agreement that is formed at the same time as another and on the occasion of another (the underlying contract), of which, however, it is not a mere part.

In some cases, the invalidity of the underlying contract also entails the invalidity of the arbitration clause: for example in the case, referred to by Carnelutti (Clausola compromissoria, cit., p. 331), of the underlying contract and arbitration clause entered into by an incapacitated person; or in the case, more frequent, of a contract whose signature is forged. In these cases, the invalidity of the contract also entails the invalidity of the arbitration clause. In all other cases, however, the invalidity of the contract cannot also constitute a ground for invalidity of the autonomous stipulation contained in the arbitration clause. The latter is therefore valid and enforceable and jurisdiction lies with the arbitral tribunal.

Post-WW2 Italian case law upheld the separability doctrine and therefore stated that the invalidity of the underlying contract does not entail the invalidity of the arbitration clause and vice versa. In this respect, earlier decisions issued in the 50s of XX century were upheld by the Italian Supreme Court in its decisions No. 2161 of 29 July 1964, No. 221 of 27 January 1967, and No. 3003 of 11 October 1972, no. 3003. In its decision No. 4279 of 2 July 1981 Italian Supreme Court drew a distinction, by specifying that separability doctrine does not apply in case of contractual arbitration (that is to say, a particular ADR mechanism provided for by Italian law, resulting in an award that has the same effects as a contract entered into by the parties) and that principle is currently upheld by Italian case law (see for example Italian Supreme Court, First Civil Chamber, decisions No. 9230 of 9 April 2008 and No. 5105 of 29 March 2012).

Scholars’ opinion agrees (see for example Rescigno, Arbitrato e autonomia contrattuale, on Riv. arb., 1991, p. 13 ss).

Finally, Italian Parliament, by passing 1994 reform of Italian arbitration law, enacted separability presumption and the relevant doctrine as already laid down by Italian scholars’ opinion and case law.

At the end of this long process, there are two recent decisions of Italian lower Courts, issued by the Court of Appeal of Ancona (decision No.916 of 15 September 2020, Italian text available here) and by the Court of first instance of Catania (decision No. 3016 of 21 September 2020, Italian text available here).

The claimant in Ancona requested the Court to set aside an arbitration award issued in contractual arbitration proceedings. In these proceedings, it acted as respondent, while the claimant claimed its breach to the underlying contract and, as a consequence, the termination of the same contract. In the opinion of the claimant in the Court proceedings, separability presumption does not apply in the case at hand, since it does not apply in cases of contractual arbitration. As a consequence, the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the dispute concerning the termination of the underlying contract.

The Court of Appeal rejected the claim, noting that in cases of disputes concerning the termination of a contract, the contract is not regarded as a contractual instrument, but as a contractual relationship. Indeed, termination concerns the contractual relationship, not the contractual instrument. While the contractual instrument remains valid and enforceable, the contractual relationship is terminated. In the light of these principles, there is no room to question on the separability (or non-separability) of the arbitration clause with respect to the underlying contract: the validity of the latter is not in dispute so that the validity of the former cannot be denied.

The decision correctly applies the relevant principles of Italian law; unfortunately, the Court of Appeal did not take the chance to examine the issue of the application of separability presumption in cases of contractual arbitration, as a revision of the principles applyd by Italian case law on the matter would be needed.

In turn, the Court of first instance of Catania heard a complex case, in which the incorporation of a company was simulated, while the parties wished to jointly buy an interest in land. The company’s articles of association, which the Court found to be a simulated contract, contained an arbitration clause. A dispute between the parties arose, and the Court rejected the objection to its jurisdiction raised by the defendant on the basis of the said arbitration clause. In the Court’s opinion, the simulation of the underlying contract affected the enforceability of the arbitration clause contained therein. In particular, the Court stated that, since the apparently incorporated company did not exist, also the arbitration clause contained in its articles of association did not exist.

The conclusion reached by the Court of Catania seems extreme and disproportionate, inconsistent with separability presumption as enacted by Article 808 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure and with the evolution of the relevant doctrine that was also laid down with specific reference to cases of simulation of the underlying contract (as in the mentioned decision of the Swiss Federal Court of 7 October 1933).

A different issue, which the Court did not address, is that of the application of Article 34 of Italian Legislative Decree No. 5 of 17 January 2003. In other words, the question is whether the arbitration clause contained in the simulated articles of association of a simulated company has to comply with the requirements set forth by Italian law on corporate arbitration, and therefore, for instance, if the said clause has to provide for the appointment of the whole arbitral tribunal by a third party.

There are no reported decisions on that very issue, nor scholars’ opinions. It could be maintained that specific rules on corporate arbitration should anyway apply since, if they do not, the arbitration clause would be valid or invalid depending on the decision on the merits (valid if company’s incorporation is actually simulated, otherwise invalid). However, that argument could be flawed: in fact, even in the case of a contract bearing an allegedly forged signature, arbitral jurisdiction is established (or denied) depending on the decision on the merits. In addition, different conclusions could be reached if the contract simulation is not a disputed issue and therefore the validity of the arbitration clause does not depend on the decision on that issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Browsing this website you accept the use of cookies. more info

The following information is provided in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 679/2018 ("GDPR"), to users who access the services available at (“Site”). When consulting the Site, information concerning users may be collected that constitutes personal data under the Privacy Code. This information is provided exclusively for the Site and does not affect any other web sites accessible by the user through links provided on the same.
Data Controller (Titolare del trattamento) is Arbitration in Italy Ltd, a company incorporated under English law, registered at No. 12459814, with registered office in 61 Bridge Street, Kington, HR5 3DJ, UK ("Company"). Data Processor (Responsabile del trattamento) is the Company's present legal representative.
The processing of data related to the web services on this Site is carried out at the premises of the Company set out above and is performed by internal personnel duly appointed as Persons in charge of processing (Incaricati del trattamento).
Surfing Data
During the normal operation, the computer systems and software procedures used to operate the Site acquire some personal data whose transmission is implicit in the communication protocols of the Internet. This information is not collected to be associated with identified persons, but by its very nature could, through processing and association with data held by third parties, allow identification of users. This category of data includes IP addresses or domain names of computers used by users who connect to the Site, URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) of requested resources, the time of the request, the method used to submit the request to the server, the size of the file obtained in reply, the numerical code indicating the status of the response from the server (successful, error, etc.) and other parameters regarding the operating system and computer environment. These data are used only to obtain statistical information about the site and its use and to check its correct functioning and are deleted immediately after processing. The data could be used to ascertain responsibility in the event of possible computer crimes committed against the Site: except in this case, the data on web contacts are kept for a maximum period of seven days.
Data provided voluntarily by the user
The sending of optional, explicit and voluntary e-mails to addresses shown on this Site, and the filling in of forms specifically provided involve the subsequent acquisition of the sender’s e-mail address and the additional personal data provided in the electronic communication, together with the sender/user’s data necessary to respond to requests as well as to provide the service. Specific summary information will be provided in relation to specific services.
Cookies are data files which some websites, while visited, can send to the user with the scope of tracing its path inside the site and collect data in anonymous form, in order to enhance the offer and the use of the site. The Company does not use information technology for the direct acquisition of personal data by which the user can be identified. Cookies for the transmission of personal information or systems for the tracing of users are not used. The Company uses so-called technical cookies only with the scope of rendering browsing the Site possible and to make it possible for the user to use its functions. Some technical cookies are necessary in order to optimize the use and have the user accredit itself with the Site, for example in order to enter a restricted area (so-called browser cookie). The browsing cookies are session cookies and are deactivated automatically once the browser is closed. For the installation of these cookies it is not necessary to collect the consent of the user. The Company uses furthermore analytic cookies of thirds parties by which information on the interaction of the visitor with the content of the Site is obtained (most frequently used pages, time of use, etc.) and which thereby provide statistic information which makes it possible to optimize the Site and to enhance its use.
Unless specified for surfing data, the user is free to provide personal information in the application forms or otherwise indicate them in order to request any information packs or other communications. Failure to provide personal information may, however, make it impossible to fulfill the request.
Personal data are processed by automated tools for the time necessary to achieve the purposes for which they were collected. Specific security measures have been taken to prevent loss of data, unlawful or incorrect use and unauthorized access.
The personal information provided by users who request dispatch of information packs or rendering of services is used only to provide the service requested and may be disclosed to Company’s employees and consultants, duly appointed as Persons in charge of processing, as well as third parties that render ancillary or instrumental services to the activity of the Company and which are appointed as Data Controllers. There will not be any other communication of data to third parties, except upon request of public authorities. The data collected will not be disseminated.
Data subjects are entitled, pursuant to Article 12 of the GDPR, to obtain, at any time, confirmation of the existence of the data and to know their origin, verify their accuracy or request their integration, updating or correction. Pursuant to this article data subjects shall have the right to request cancellation, anonymization or blocking of data processed in violation of the law, and in any case, to object on legitimate grounds to their processing. Requests should be sent to the Data Processor, at the above address or by email to