Court of Appeal of Rome, 3 July 2025, N. 4222
Legal Principle
The mere declaration of inadmissibility of a previous application for recognition of the executory effect of a foreign arbitration award for defect of formal requirements does not prevent the further re-presentation of the application for recognition of the same award, not constituting a preclusive obstacle within the meaning of Article 839 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The existence of the arbitration clause and of its valid subscription constitutes an indispensable element for recognition of a foreign arbitration award and configures a necessary procedural prerequisite for valid institution of proceedings for exequatur, which must subsist at the moment of institution of the proceedings.
For purposes of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award pursuant to Article 839 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the requirement of non-contrariety to public policy must be ascertained with exclusive reference to the operative part of the arbitral pronouncement, not to the reasoning nor to the execution, excluding any scrutiny of the reasoning which would give rise to a re-examination on the merits.
The principle of par condicio creditorum, as expressed by the internal rules of insolvency law, does not constitute an expression of public policy which prevents recognition in Italy of a foreign arbitral award of condemnation against companies admitted to insolvency proceedings.
In proceedings for recognition of a foreign arbitration award, contestations relating to the modalities of satisfaction of the credit or to its ranking in relation to other creditors fall outside the object of the proceedings, which pertains exclusively to the recognisability of the title in the national legal order, the stage of execution being placed at a moment subsequent to that of formation of the title.
The procedure for recognition of the executory effect of a foreign arbitration award pursuant to Article 839 of the Code of Civil Procedure is of a purely formal nature and cannot translate into scrutiny on the merits of the arbitral pronouncement, such scrutiny being categorically excluded by the 1958 New York Convention.
Methodological Notes
standard