Court of Appeal of Roma, judgment of 26 June 2026, No. 5486

In proceedings to set aside an arbitral award, which are subject to limited grounds of challenge within the limits established by art. 829 cod. proc. civ., the rule requiring specificity in the formulation of grounds applies, given the rescinding nature of such proceedings and the fact that only compliance with that rule enables verification of whether the complaints raised correspond exactly to the cases of challenge established by that provision; a complaint generically referring to multiple violations without specific and pertinent identification of the alleged procedural breach is inadmissible.
The mandatory stay of arbitral proceedings under art. 819-bis cod. proc. civ. is confined to preliminary issues of a technical-legal nature that must be decided with the force of res judicata by operation of law; a merely logical or ontological relationship of preliminary dependence that would compel a stay of the arbitral proceedings cannot be established.
The nullity of an award for contradictory reasoning under art. 829, co. 1, n. 11, cod. proc. civ. does not arise from every internal contradiction between different parts of the reasoning; it may constitute a defect of the award only where it makes it absolutely impossible to reconstruct the logical and legal path underlying the decision owing to the total absence of reasoning referable to its functional model.