The power to decline arbitral jurisdiction provided unilaterally in favour of the concessionaire alone in an arbitration clause drafted by the public administration does not conflict with constitutional principles, as it constitutes protection of the weaker contracting party against the unilateral drafting of the clause by the public body which has freely manifested its intention to submit to arbitration.
In disputes concerning concessions for the conduct of horse racing betting, a claim for damages for breach by the granting public administration of obligations arising from the concession agreement is arbitrable through institutional arbitration when it does not require review of powers exercised by the public administration in the concession relationship, but concerns the determination of aspects falling within the scope of equal treatment between contracting parties that does not require the intermediation of public power and relates to situations of subjective rights.
The defence of limitation raised for the first time in the respondent's statement of defence filed beyond the time limits set for the constitution of the parties and limited solely to reply activities is precluded when the arbitral tribunal has identified ordinary civil procedure as the procedure to be followed in the arbitral proceedings.
The equitable quantification of damages pursuant to Article 1226 of the Civil Code by the arbitral tribunal does not affect the criterion of judgment followed but only the determination of compensation claims, being compatible with the institutional nature of the arbitral proceedings.