Court of Pavia, order of 23 June 2026 (R.G. 00001719/2026)

Pursuant to art. 815 co. 2 cod. proc. civ., a party that has contributed to the appointment of an arbitrator may not challenge that arbitrator on grounds that were already known at the time of appointment; where the arbitrator has been designated by contractual agreement of the parties, a challenge is admissible only on grounds that arose or became known after the appointment.
The ground for challenge under art. 815 co. 1 n. 5 cod. proc. civ. is not made out merely because a notary designated as arbitrator has performed professional services for both parties to the dispute, since such a circumstance indicates the absence of an exclusive ongoing relationship with one party only and presupposes the mutual trust placed in the professional's expertise.
The ground for challenge under art. 815 co. 1 n. 6 cod. proc. civ. is not made out by the mere fact that the designated arbitrator held in custody the contractual document containing the arbitration clause, where the professional has not provided advice, assistance or representation to either party in connection with the subject-matter of the arbitral proceedings.
Manifest unfoundedness of an application to challenge an arbitrator, which is the prerequisite for a penalty order under art. 815 penultimate paragraph cod. proc. civ., does not arise where it emerges that the designated arbitrator maintained professional relations with both parties, a circumstance that justifies bringing the application even in the absence of the grounds set out in art. 815 cod. proc. civ.