The challenge of an arbitral award for non-observance of rules of law pursuant to Article 829(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is admissible within the same limits as the violation of law that may be raised in an appeal to the Court of Cassation under Article 360(1) n. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and requires the specific allegation that the rule of law applied was erroneous in relation to the facts as found by the arbitrators, and cannot be based on the mere contention of deficiencies in the investigation or errors in the assessment of the evidence.
The allegation of nullity of the award for non-observance of rules of law must concern a defect in the identification or attribution of meaning to a statutory provision, or an error in identifying the exact prescriptive scope of the rule applied to a factual situation that does not correspond thereto, review of the erroneous assessment of the concrete factual situation in light of the evidentiary record being precluded, as such assessment falls outside the scope of interpretation and application of the rule.
In proceedings challenging an arbitral award, it is not permissible to seek a different assessment of the merits of the dispute from that carried out by the arbitrator, given that such reassessment exceeds the limits of the challenge for violation of rules of law.
The order for production of documents pursuant to Articles 210 and 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure is admissible in arbitral proceedings, as it may be voluntarily complied with by the addressee, in application of the principle of the admissibility of an order to perform an obligation incapable of specific enforcement (facere infungibile), irrespective of the inability of the arbitrators to proceed to compulsory enforcement or to impose sanctions in the event of non-compliance.
In a challenge to an arbitral award for violation of rules of law relating to the admissibility of evidentiary requests, the court hearing the challenge must carry out a counterfactual assessment whereby, having mentally replaced the erroneous proposition with the correct one, it verifies whether the decision would stand, with the consequence that the error of law does not result in the nullity of the award where the requests would in any event have been inadmissible or irrelevant on other grounds.