The special curator appointed pursuant to art. 78 of the Code of Civil Procedure remains in office until the contingent situation that rendered the appointment necessary ceases to exist, with the consequence that the related powers are not exhausted by the pronouncement of the final judgment of the degree of proceedings in the course of which the appointment occurred and that the same is empowered to lodge an appeal against the arbitral award and to resist the appeal lodged by the counterparty.
For the purposes of nullity of the award pursuant to art. 829 nos. 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in relation to art. 823 no. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the relevant omitted or contradictory reasoning is only that which determines the absolute impossibility of reconstructing the logical and legal reasoning underlying the decision due to the total absence of reasoning traceable to its functional model.
The defect of contradictoriness of the award exists in case of conflict between the different components of the operative part or between the reasoning and the operative part, while any internal contradiction between the different parts of the reasoning is relevant only when it prevents the reconstruction of the logical and legal reasoning underlying the decision.
Art. 829 para. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Legislative Decree no. 40 of 2006, applies in arbitral proceedings commenced after the entry into force of the aforesaid legislative decree, and in corporate arbitration the appeal for violation of rules of law relating to the merits of the dispute is admitted only when the award concerns the challenge of shareholders’ resolutions or when in deciding the arbitrators have adjudicated non-arbitrable questions.
The defect of omitted ruling in the arbitral award occurs in the case where the arbitrator’s decision that resolves the question brought to his attention is completely missing and is not configurable when there is an implicit ruling of rejection of the claim because the acceptance of the claim is incompatible with the logical-legal framework of the ruling, even if specific reasoning is lacking.