Default arbitration proceedings

Default arbitration proceedings, or – with a more accurate wording – arbitration proceedings in which a situation occurs corresponding to the situation giving rise to default proceedings in State Courts, is a topic of relevant practical interest.

Italian scholars dealt with that topic, developing three theses.  The first thesis holds that the above situation may occur in arbitration proceedings.  The second thesis, on the contrary, is that this situation cannot occur.  The third thesis, which is the more persuasive, is that it is necessary to identify the law rules concerning default proceedings before State Courts, which are compatible with arbitration proceedings.

On the other hand, Italian case law tends to repeat the doctrine that default proceedings rules do not apply in arbitration proceedings.

In this framework, two recent decisions, both issued in proceedings for the setting aside of Italian domestic awards, are fascinating, as the awards were issued in ‘default’ arbitration proceedings.

The first mentioned decision was issued by the Italian Supreme Court (Italian Supreme Court, I Civil Chamber, decision No. 24008 of 6 September 2021, Italian text available here). The case may be summarized as follows.

In multi-party arbitration proceedings, one of the respondents has not carried out any defensive activity: in other words, it has not ‘made contact’ with the Arbitral Tribunal, thus giving rise to a situation that, from a practical point of view, is quite similar to default proceedings in State Courts.

After the issuance of the award, the party ‘in default’ requested the Court of appeal to set it aside.  Its request was dismissed.

That party then appealed to the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court.  It noted that it had not received the written submissions exchanged during the arbitration proceedings and claimed that this would involve that the award was invalid for two reasons.  First of all, the formalities established by the parties were not complied with, as it was provided in the minutes of the hearing of constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal that the written submissions had to be directly exchanged between the parties.  In addition, the lack of knowledge of the defences of the other parties would have precluded it from presenting its case.

In the proceedings before the Supreme Court, another defendant, who had ‘appeared’ in the arbitration proceedings, also claimed that the award was invalid. The reason was that the party ‘in default’ was precluded from presenting its case during the proceedings, as it did not receive the other parties’ submissions.

The Supreme Court rejected all the above grounds.

As for the ground raised by the party who ‘appeared’ in the arbitration proceedings, the Supreme Court rejected it, noting that only the party (allegedly) prevented from presenting its case would be entitled to raise such a claim.  In reaching that conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld its case law on default proceedings in State Courts.

The reasoning leading to the rejection of the grounds raised by the party ‘in default’ is more interesting.  

First of all, the Supreme Court observed that formalities concerning the proceedings, if not complied, may lead to the setting aside of the award only provided that these formalities have been established under pain of invalidity.  That was not the case, and the ground was rejected. 

The Supreme Court then examined the most significant ground concerning the alleged preclusion for the party to present the case.  In this regard, the Supreme Court noted that in proceedings before State Courts, Article 292 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure governs the matter.  The said provision has the purpose of allowing the party in default to have knowledge of some specific procedural acts: those extending the subject matter of the proceedings (new claims or counterclaims) or leading to severe consequences against the party in default (formal questioning or oath).  Therefore, in the light of the content, and the rationale, of Article 292 of Italian Code of Civil procedure, the Supreme Court concluded that the party ‘in default’ in arbitration proceedings should not be granted greater protections than those recognized to party in default before State Couts.  In other words, there is no reason why the issuance of the award should require more significant guarantees, as far as the right to present the parties’ case is concerned, than those granted in State Courts.  In so ruling, the Supreme Court countered – maybe unknowingly – the scholars’ opinion whereby all the written submissions have to be at least communicated to the party ‘in default’, although a service, that is to say, a formal communication under Articles 137 ff. of Italian Code of Civil Procedure, is not required.  Under the mentioned scholars’ opinion, this communication would follow the fact that in arbitration proceedings Article 170, para. 4, of Italian Code of Civil Procedure does not apply (the said Article setting forth that written submissions are usually communicated by lodging them with the Registry of the Court).

Concerning the matter of this contribution, the reasoning of the second decision is definitely more concise (Court of Appeal of Rome, 20 September 2021, No. 6093, Italian text available here).

The case heard by the Court concerned other multi-party arbitration proceedings.  In that caser, the Arbitral Tribunal issued the award after the expiry of the term set forth by Article 820 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure (240 days of the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal), and the award-debtor requested the Court to set it aside based on this ground.

The issue of ‘default’ arbitration is grafted onto this ground of appeal.  Indeed, Article 821 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure provides that the expiry of the term referred to in Article 820 of the same Code may constitute a ground to set aside an award only if the interested party, after the expiry of the term and before the issuance of the award, has served on the arbitrators and other parties a communication indicating its intention not to accept a ‘late’ award.  In the case at hand, the interested party has so communicated to the arbitrators and to the ‘appeared’ party, albeit without complying with the formalities required by Articles 137 ff. of Italian Code of Civil Procedure (in other words, it communicated to the arbitrators and the other party, but did not serve on them), and omitted any communication to the party ‘in default’.

The omission of both the above formalities and of any communication to the party ‘in default’ led the Court of Appeal to dismiss the request to set aside the award.  In particular, the Court of Appeal noted that Article 292 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure does not apply in arbitration proceedings.  In any case, the Court added that Article 821 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure requires service on all the parties, including parties possibly ‘in default’.

It seems that both decisions elected to upheld the arbitration awards.  This election led the Courts to conflicting statements on the application of Article 292 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure in arbitration proceedings.

In this regard, a renewed in-depth scholarly discussion seems appropriate to identify the guarantees for the party ‘in default’ in arbitration proceedings and the relevant procedural measures.

In a few words, the statement of the Supreme Court seems correct.  The party ‘in default’ in arbitration proceedings should be granted the same guarantees as the party in default in State Courts.  Not less, but not more.  In this context, reliable guidance is given by Article 292 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure.  However, this guidance does not suffice since there are clear divergences between proceedings in a Court of law and arbitration proceedings.

Consequently, some acts other than those indicated by Article 292 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure have to be served on the party ‘in default’.  These acts include, for instance, the communication referred to in Article 821 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure (as noted by the Court of Appeal of Rome) and any act possibly affecting the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal or the extent of its powers.  Regarding other written submissions (and related documents), there is no lodging with the Registry of the Court in arbitration proceedings.  Nevertheless, there is a corresponding activity.  The lodging with the registry is indeed instrumental in allowing the Court and the other parties to have knowledge of the submissions.  The very same purpose is reached in arbitration proceedings by communicating the submissions to the Arbitral Tribunal and the other parties, observing the formalities established by the arbitration agreement, the parties or the Tribunal, as the case may be.  As a consequence, this communication, which takes the place of lodging with the Registry of the Court, should have the same effects as the said lodging.

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