Court of Foggia, judgment of 25 June 2026, No. 1467

The existence of an arbitration agreement does not preclude a creditor from applying for and obtaining from the ordinary court an order for payment (decreto ingiuntivo), since the monitorio procedure is characterised by the possibility of issuing the order inaudita altera parte, a model that is incompatible with the structure of arbitral proceedings, which are based on a full hearing of both parties.
Once an opposition to an order for payment obtained notwithstanding a pending arbitration agreement is lodged, an ordinary cognisance proceeding is commenced in which the debtor may raise the objection that the dispute has been referred to arbitration; where the arbitration agreement is valid, effective and applicable to the dispute, the court hearing the opposition must take note of the arbitral jurisdiction, revoke the order for payment and remit the parties to the arbitrators.
An arbitration clause contained in standard terms, forms or templates drawn up by one of the parties, inasmuch as it derogates from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, must be specifically approved in writing under artt. 1341 and 1342 cod. civ., read with art. 808 cod. proc. civ.; the mere general signature of the contract is insufficient where there is no autonomous approval of the derogatory clause, nor may an arbitration clause be treated as implicitly approved where it is absent from the list of clauses subject to specific signature, since that omission is indicative of the absence of a conscious assent to the exclusion of ordinary jurisdiction.