The presence of an arbitration clause in a contract does not prevent the creditor from requesting and obtaining an order for payment from the ordinary court for a debt arising from the same contract, it being understood that the respondent may raise the objection of arbitral jurisdiction in the opposition proceedings, with the consequent obligation for the court hearing the opposition to revoke the order for payment and refer the parties to the arbitrators.
The effectiveness of an arbitration clause is subject to specific written approval pursuant to Article 1341, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code exclusively where it is incorporated in standard terms and conditions intended to govern an indefinite series of contractual relationships, both from a substantive and formal perspective; such approval is therefore not required where the clause is contained in contractual provisions drawn up for a specific and individual transaction.
The unilateral drafting of standard terms and conditions constitutes a constitutive fact of the claim of a party who intends to assert the ineffectiveness of an arbitration clause due to the absence of specific written approval, with the consequent burden of proof upon the party raising such ineffectiveness; the absence of such proof may be noted by the court of its own motion.
By virtue of the principle of autonomy of the arbitration clause in relation to the contract to which it relates, it does not constitute an accessory to the principal transaction but has its own distinct identity, such that the grounds of invalidity of the substantive contract do not extend to the arbitration clause; it follows that the nullity of the contract does not vitiate the arbitration clause contained therein, the determination of the alleged invalidity of the transaction remaining a matter for the arbitrators.