Court of Appeal of Roma, judgment of 24 June 2026, No. 5369

As regards the challenge of an arbitral award, the applicable law is determined ratione temporis by the law in force at the time of conclusion of the arbitration clause: arbitration agreements concluded before the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 40 of 2 February 2006 continue to be governed by the previous law, which provided for the challengeability of the award for violation of substantive law unless the parties had agreed otherwise, and such saving of pre-existing agreements must be regarded as inherent in the legal system in the absence of an express transitional provision.
A challenge to an arbitral award under art. 829 co. 2 cod. proc. civ. in its version prior to the reform introduced by Legislative Decree no. 40 of 2006, on the ground of non-observance of rules of law, is admissible only within the same bounds as a ground of violation of law that may be raised before the Court of Cassation under art. 360 co. 1 n. 3 cod. proc. civ.; it requires the explicit allegation of error in the legal standard applied to the facts as found by the arbitrators and is not available in connection with the mere assertion of gaps in inquiry or reasoning.
Grounds of challenge to an arbitral award that amount to criticisms of factual assessments made by the arbitrators, without identifying the specific rule of substantive law violated or misapplied, are inadmissible, since they do not constitute errors in iudicando reviewable on a challenge under art. 829 cod. proc. civ.
An order for costs of the arbitral proceedings made by the arbitrators according to the principle of costs following the event, with an express ruling to that effect, encompasses as a natural consequence the reimbursement of all costs of the arbitration, including the costs of constituting and operating the arbitral tribunal, without any separate and explicit ruling on each item of cost being required; accordingly, no omission to rule within the meaning of art. 829 co. 1 n. 12 cod. proc. civ. can be identified. Service of the request for arbitration on a respondent party at the registered office of the entity of which that party is an official, in the course of the arbitral proceedings, is valid and does not render the award null and void for want of due process; the fact that the notice of challenge to the award was subsequently served on another person by order of the Court of Appeal does not alter the procedural position of the original respondent nor give rise to necessary joinder on the part of the new addressee of service.