The presence of an arbitration clause does not prevent the issue of a payment order by ordinary courts, whilst preserving the respondent's right to raise arbitral jurisdiction in opposition proceedings, with consequent obligation for the court to revoke the payment order and refer the parties to arbitration.
When in opposition proceedings to a payment order the lack of jurisdiction of ordinary courts in favour of arbitration is raised and accepted, the payment order must be declared void and revoked, applying Article 819-ter(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in conjunction with Article 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure for any resumption of proceedings.
The acceptance of the arbitral jurisdiction exception entails the absorption of all other procedural and substantive questions raised by the parties, the claims advanced on the merits remaining reserved to arbitral cognition by express agreement contained in the arbitration clause.
In case of acceptance of the arbitral jurisdiction exception, the opposition court must rule on procedural costs without referring the decision to the tribunal declared competent, applying the principle of costs following the event against the party who chose to resort to summary proceedings despite the presence of an arbitration clause.
The choice to resort to summary proceedings in the presence of an arbitration clause constitutes a procedural risk borne by the creditor, given that such clause may be legitimately invoked by the debtor in the opposition phase with consequent defeat of the creditor.