A conflict of interests ecting the legal representatives of a party to arbitration proceedings does not constitute a violation of the right to adversarial proceedings within the meaning of art. 829, para. 1, no. 9), cod. proc. civ. — thereby grounding nullity of the award — unless it amounts to an incompatibility of interests under art. 78 cod. proc. civ., namely a situation in which the representative pursues a purpose potentially contrary to that of the party represented; such a conflict may at most give rise to disciplinarybility.
Nullity of an arbitral award for contradictory provisions under art. 829, para. 1, no. 11), cod. proc. civ. does not correspond to the ground of appeal under art. 360, para. 1, no. 5), cod. proc. civ.; the contradiction must appear between the different components of the operative part, or between the reasoning and the operative part. Internal contradiction within the reasoning may constitute a ground of nullity only where it makes it absolutely impossible to reconstruct the logical and legal reasoning underlying the decision.
An arbitrator deciding a dispute concerning a real right over company shares is required to examine, albeit incidentally, the content of the property and usufruct rights relevant to the decision; such an examination does not concern non-arbitrable subject matter within the meaning of art. 829, para. 4), cod. proc. civ., since the issue is referred to the arbitrators merely as a preliminary matter.
A ground of challenge to an award based on contrariety to public policy under art. 829, para. 3), cod. proc. civ. is inadmissible where the challenging party has not specifically set out the reasons for which the award is said to be contrary to the constitutional or international law provisions invoked.