As regards arbitration, the distinction between arbitration and contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale) turns upon the parties’ intention, which in the former case is directed at obtaining an award capable of being declared enforceable and of producing the effects laid down by art. 825 cod. proc. civ., whereas in the latter it is confined to entrusting the arbitrator with the resolution of the dispute by purely contractual means, through an amicable settlement or a contract of ascertainment, with the undertaking to regard the resulting decision as the expression of the parties’ own will.
For the purpose of identifying the means of challenging an award, what matters is not the nature of the arbitration provided for by the parties, but the nature of the act actually performed by the arbitrators, so that an award made in the forms laid down by artt. 816 et seq. cod. proc. civ. may be challenged exclusively under art. 827 cod. proc. civ., notwithstanding an arbitration agreement or arbitration clause providing for contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale).
The pendency of a challenge to the contractual award on which the claim to the credit is founded, on grounds analogous to those relied upon in the opposition proceedings, constitutes the serious grounds justifying a stay of the provisional enforcement of the order for payment under art. 649 cod. proc. civ.