In the interpretation of an arbitration clause, in order to distinguish between arbitration and contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale), the clause must be interpreted with reference to the literal text, the common intention of the parties and their overall conduct, and any persisting doubt as to the actual intention of the contracting parties must be resolved in favour of arbitration, having regard to the exceptional nature of the derogation from the rule that the award has the force of a judgment, in the absence of certain elements to conclude that the arbitration was intended as an instrument of amicable settlement.
The provision in the arbitration clause that the arbitrators shall decide according to equity and without procedural formalities is not, by itself, sufficient to qualify the arbitration as contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale).
The arbitration clause establishing arbitration contained in a contract applies, by virtue of the principle under Article 1372 of the Civil Code, also to the successors in title of the contracting party, who are called upon to answer for the obligations arising from the contract itself.
Where the ordinary court has been erroneously seized in the presence of an arbitration clause establishing arbitration, the lack of jurisdiction of the court must be declared in favour of the arbitral tribunal, before which the proceedings may be resumed within the time limits prescribed by law.