In matters of arbitration, an extension of the time limit for rendering the award, agreed by the parties pursuant to Article 820, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, is valid even if made after the expiry of the originally fixed time limit, provided that the interested party has not already notified its intention to rely on the arbitrators' loss of jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by law. The agreement on granting the extension renders any nullity of the award for delay irrelevant, expressing the party's intention to obtain a decision on the merits in any event.
The arbitrators' loss of jurisdiction due to the expiry of the time limit constitutes a ground for nullity of the award pursuant to Article 829, paragraph 1, No. 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure only where the party has previously notified its intention to rely on such loss of jurisdiction; in the absence of such notification, the party that has not raised the objection in its first application or subsequent defence cannot challenge the award on this ground, pursuant to Article 829, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Complaints relating to the manner in which expert evidence was conducted, referred to in the award only incidentally in support of a decision already based on other probative elements, are not sufficient to constitute the grounds for nullity of the award provided for in Article 829, paragraph 1, Nos. 11 and 12, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which apply respectively where there is irreconcilability between the provisions of the operative part or between the reasoning and the operative part such as to render the ratio decidendi incomprehensible, or where there has been a failure to rule on claims or defences put forward in accordance with the arbitration agreement.
Contrariety to public policy in procedural matters, as a ground for nullity of the award, cannot be found in relation to an alleged violation of the principle of party disposition of evidence, given that this principle, being subject to numerous and wide-ranging derogations in the procedural system, cannot be traced back to the fundamental and mandatory principles of the legal system whose violation constitutes a ground for nullity of the award.