Challenge of an arbitral award for violation of rules of law on the merits of the dispute is not admissible when arbitral proceedings were commenced based on an arbitration clause subsequent to modifications introduced by Legislative Decree 40/2006, unless the clause expressly provided such ground for challenge.
The contradiction referred to in Article 829(1)(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure for challenge of arbitral awards for nullity does not correspond to that of Article 360(1)(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure and must emerge between different components of the operative part or between reasoning and operative part. Internal contradiction between different parts of the reasoning does not constitute a defect, save where it prevents reconstruction of the logical and legal reasoning underlying the decision by reason of total absence of reasoning referable to its functional model.
A claim formulated for the first time in observations on court-appointed technical evidence in arbitral proceedings is late and inadmissible, not constituting omitted ruling under Article 829(1)(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
An arbitration clause must be interpreted according to its literal tenor to determine admissible grounds for challenging the award, challenge for violation of rules of law being precluded when the clause does not expressly contemplate such possibility.