The challenge for nullity of an arbitral award constitutes proceedings subject to limited review, admissible exclusively in the presence of specific grounds corresponding to defects attributable to the errores in procedendo listed in Article 829, paragraph 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure or to the violation of rules of law within the narrow limits permitted by the same article, without the court hearing the challenge being permitted to proceed to a re-examination on the merits of the arbitral decision.
Proceedings to challenge an arbitral award have a two-phase structure: the rescinding phase is aimed at ascertaining any nullities arising from certain errores in procedendo or from non-observance of rules of law pursuant to Article 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without the Court of Appeal being permitted to proceed to findings of fact; the rescissory phase, once the award has been annulled, is aimed at re-examining the merits of the claims.
Pursuant to Article 829, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Article 24 of Legislative Decree 40/2006, a challenge for violation of the rules of law relating to the merits of the dispute is admissible only if expressly provided for by the parties in the arbitration agreement or by law, whilst in any event a challenge on grounds of being contrary to public policy remains admissible.
In the rescinding phase of proceedings to challenge an award, the examination of challenges of nullity for violation of rules of law in iudicando is limited to ascertaining the non-application by the arbitrators of the rules of law alleged to have been violated, without the Court of Appeal being able to proceed to an interpretation of the parties' intention different from that ascertained by the arbitrators themselves, nor to review the logic of the reasoning or the evaluation of evidential elements.
With regard to the interpretation of contract in proceedings to challenge an award, a party alleging violation of the legal canons of contractual interpretation referred to in Articles 1362 et seq. of the Civil Code may not limit itself to a generic reference to such provisions, but must make explicit reference to the legal rules of interpretation by means of specific indication of the provisions allegedly violated and of the principles contained therein, specifying in what manner and by what reasoning the arbitrators departed from the legal canons alleged to have been violated, without the challenge being capable of resolving itself into the mere counterposing of the challenger's interpretation to that adopted in the award.
The defect of omission to rule pursuant to Article 829, paragraph 1, number 12, of the Code of Civil Procedure arises exclusively in the case of failure to examine claims or defences on the merits, not extending to mere defences not qualifying as defences in the strict sense.
Proceedings on remittal consequent upon cassation of the judgment delivered in proceedings to challenge an arbitral award, whilst endowed with autonomy, do not give rise to new and further proceedings, but represent a further phase of the original proceedings to be regarded as single and unitary; resumption pursuant to Article 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not constitute a new challenge, but rather a procedural impetus aimed at reactivating the continuation of the proceedings concluded with the annulled judgment.