Proceedings for the setting aside of an arbitral award under Article 827 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not constitute appellate proceedings, but proceedings of limited review directed exclusively at the declaration of nullity of the award on the grounds exhaustively listed in Article 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the consequence that the grounds must be specifically formulated and it is not possible to seek a re-examination on the merits of the arbitral decision, save in the rescissory phase following a finding of nullity.
Where a preliminary contract and a subsequent definitive contract each contain an arbitration clause, the survival of the preliminary contract as expressly agreed by the parties entails the effectiveness of both arbitration clauses, the first applying to disputes arising from breach of the preliminary contract and the second to disputes relating to the performance of the definitive contract, without the second replacing the first in the absence of an express contractual intention to that effect.
An arbitration clause that provides, in the alternative, for a conciliation procedure before a body and, in the event of failure, the right to apply to the same body for the appointment of an arbitrator, does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on that arbitrator, there being concurrent jurisdiction of the arbitrator designated pursuant to a different arbitration clause contained in another agreement still in force between the parties.
The objection of lack of standing to sue (difetto di legittimazione attiva) of the party that commenced proceedings before the arbitrators, based on the contention that standing belongs to another person, goes to the merits of the dispute and does not constitute a ground of nullity of the award under Article 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since standing to sue must be assessed on the basis of the claimant’s pleadings and must not be confused with the merits of the claims brought.
Procedural irregularities occurring in the course of arbitral proceedings, such as the participation of arbitrators by video link or the non-contemporaneous signing of hearing minutes, do not constitute a breach of the right to be heard nor a ground of nullity of the award under Article 829(1)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, amounting at most to mere irregularities devoid of invalidating effect, unless the parties have expressly prescribed specific forms with an express sanction of nullity pursuant to Article 829(1)(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The refusal by the arbitral tribunal to admit evidence requested by a party, on the ground that the evidence was unsuitable or that the facts to be proved were superfluous, is a matter within the institutional competence of the arbitrators and cannot be challenged by way of an application for the setting aside of the arbitral award, as it falls within the merits of the decision, which is not reviewable in setting-aside proceedings.
Contradictoriness of the award capable of giving rise to nullity under Article 829(1)(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure exists exclusively where it emerges between the different components of the operative part or between the reasoning and the operative part, whereas internal contradictoriness between different parts of the reasoning alone may be relevant as a defect of the award only where it renders it absolutely impossible to reconstruct the logical and legal reasoning underlying the decision on account of the total absence of reasoning referable to its functional model.