With regard to the challenge of an arbitral award for nullity pursuant to Article 829, paragraph 1, no. 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the violation of the principle of adversarial proceedings must be assessed not from a merely formal perspective, but by verifying whether there has been an actual infringement of the possibility to plead and contradict; it follows that the nullity of the award may only be declared where, following the allegation of the defect, there is an indication of the specific prejudice caused to the right of defence, the mere allegation of procedural non-compliance not being sufficient.
For the purposes of suspending the executory effect of the arbitral award under challenge, the requirement of periculum in mora cannot be satisfied by the mere circumstance that the successful party in the arbitration proceedings is a limited liability company with complete separation of assets, such characteristic being a structural element inherent to all limited liability companies and not being capable, in itself, of establishing the concrete risk of serious harm arising from the impossibility of recovering amounts potentially paid in execution of the award.
A party who, during the arbitration proceedings, neither objected to the granting of a time limit for the filing of documents by the opposing party nor requested in turn a time limit to reply, cannot subsequently base the challenge of the award on the violation of adversarial proceedings in relation to such documentary production, having by its procedural conduct acquiesced in the arbitral determination.