The distinguishing criterion between institutional arbitration and contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale) does not lie in the terminology adopted by the parties, but rather in the intention to confer upon the arbitrators a decision-making power with effects equivalent to a judgment, or alternatively to resolve the dispute by means of a contractual determination. In institutional arbitration, the parties intend to obtain the pronouncement of an award capable of being rendered enforceable and of producing the effects referred to in Article 825 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with application of the rules of arbitral proceedings; in contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale), by contrast, they entrust to the arbitrator the resolution of the dispute through a contractual instrument, by means of an amicable settlement or an ascertainment agreement attributable to their own will.
Decisions rendered by bodies of internal associational justice, established and governed by the internal rules of an association, do not constitute institutional arbitral awards within the meaning of Articles 806 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, where there is no express reference to the forms and effects of institutional arbitration, in particular to Article 824-bis of the Code of Civil Procedure on the efficacy of a judgment and to the exequatur procedure under Article 825 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such determinations fall within the sphere of contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale) or mere internal self-regulation, producing binding effects exclusively within the associational entity.
An appeal for nullity of the award pursuant to Articles 828 and 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeal is inadmissible when the challenged decision is not attributable to an institutional arbitral award, it being a specific and exclusive remedy against arbitral pronouncements that produce the effects of a judgment pursuant to Article 824-bis of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The principle of favour towards institutional arbitration, in case of interpretative doubt as to the nature of the arbitration clause, nevertheless presupposes the existence of an arbitration agreement capable of producing institutional effects and of a procedural framework referable to Title VIII of Book IV of the Code of Civil Procedure; such principle does not apply when the internal associational justice is characterized by its own rules incompatible with the model of institutional arbitration.