The challenge to an arbitral award for nullity, governed by article 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is of a limited nature and does not give rise to appellate proceedings, but exclusively allows the ascertainment of the existence of specific procedural defects or non-observance of rules of law within the limits exhaustively provided by the provision.
Article 348 bis of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings for challenging an arbitral award, as such challenge does not introduce second instance proceedings, but rather proceedings for ascertaining invalidity at a single instance.
Re-examination on the merits of the arbitral decision by means of iudicium rescissorium is admissible only following ascertainment of the nullity of the award in the rescinding proceedings, on condition that the erroneousness of the rule of law applied in relation to the elements ascertained by the arbitrators is explicitly alleged.
The provision contained in administered arbitration rules that confers upon arbitrators the power to extend ex officio the time limit for rendering the award does not result in nullity when such power is understood to be contained within the maximum temporal perimeter established by article 820 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The nullity of an award for absent or contradictory reasoning is configurable exclusively when there occurs the absolute impossibility of reconstructing the logical and legal reasoning underlying the decision due to the total absence of reasoning referable to its functional model.
The contradiction relevant for the purposes of nullity of the award pursuant to article 829 paragraph 1 number 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that which emerges between the different components of the operative part or between the reasoning and the operative part, whilst internal contradiction between different parts of the reasoning does not assume relevance, save where it results in the absolute impossibility of reconstructing the ratio decidendi.
The nullity of an award for failure to rule on claims and defences of the parties pursuant to article 829 paragraph 1 number 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure is configurable only for the failure to examine questions of merit and not also of procedure.
The violation of the adversarial principle in arbitral proceedings must be evaluated not from a merely formal perspective but by verifying the actual impairment of the possibility to adduce and contradict, requiring indication of the specific prejudice caused to the right of defence.
Reference to the public policy clause under article 829 paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be interpreted restrictively as referring exclusively to fundamental and mandatory norms of the legal system, excluding an attenuated notion of public policy coinciding with the entirety of imperative norms.