An objection based on an arbitration clause for contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale), raised in opposition proceedings to a payment order, does not give rise to a question of jurisdiction, but rather to the inadmissibility of the judicial claim, given the contractual nature of this form of arbitration, whereby the arbitrators are entrusted with performing a contractual activity in substitution of the parties and not the exercise of a jurisdictional function.
The procedural rules laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure for institutional arbitration do not apply to contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale), and in particular Article 819-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply, which governs the relationship between the ordinary courts and institutional arbitrators, with the consequence that, once the inadmissibility of the claim due to a contractual arbitration clause (arbitrato irrituale) has been declared, no time limit may be fixed for the resumption of the proceedings before the arbitrator, the interested party being able only to institute separate arbitration proceedings.
The existence of an arbitration clause is not ascertainable of the court's own motion, but only upon objection by the interested party and, therefore, does not preclude the application for and consequent issue of a payment order, without prejudice to the right of the respondent to raise the existence of the clause in opposition proceedings, with the consequent obligation for the court hearing the opposition to revoke the payment order and declare its nullity.