For the purposes of classifying an arbitration as institutional arbitration or contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale), the arbitration clause must be construed by reference to its literal wording, the common intention of the parties, and their overall conduct, without the absence in the clause of any reference to the formalities of institutional arbitration being treated as conclusive evidence of an intention to adopt contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale), regard being had to the greater safeguards afforded by institutional arbitration as to the enforceability of the award and the regime governing challenges.
In proceedings to set aside an institutional arbitral award on grounds of nullity, the appellate court is not called upon to uphold or vary the decision as in ordinary appellate proceedings, but is tasked with ascertaining whether the arbitral decision is invalid on one of the grounds exhaustively listed in Article 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and may proceed to a re-examination of the merits of the dispute only where the award has been declared null and void and where this is permitted.
A challenge to an institutional arbitral award on grounds of nullity constitutes a remedy subject to restricted grounds of review, in which the parties are under a duty to comply strictly with the requirement that the grounds be formulated with the requisite specificity, without which it is not possible to ascertain whether the objections raised correspond to the exhaustively listed grounds for challenge set out in Article 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In proceedings to set aside an institutional arbitral award, the court of appeal may not raise the invalidity of the award of its own motion, nor declare it null and void on a ground other than those relied upon in the challenge, the power to raise nullity of its own motion being required to be coordinated with the principle of party disposition and the principle of correspondence between relief sought and relief granted.
Nullity of the award on account of contradictory provisions, within the meaning of Article 829(1)(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises where there is a contradiction between the various operative provisions of the dispositif, or a contradiction between the reasoning and the dispositif such as to render it impossible to comprehend the ratio decidendi, equivalent to a complete absence of reasoning, whereas internal inconsistency between different parts of the reasoning may be relevant only insofar as it renders it absolutely impossible to reconstruct the logical and legal reasoning underlying the decision.