Court of Ragusa, judgment of 24 June 2026, No. 1011

An arbitration clause referring generically to disputes arising from the contract to which it pertains must be construed, absent express agreement to the contrary, as conferring arbitral jurisdiction over all and only those disputes whose cause of action (causa petendi) lies in that contract, to the exclusion of disputes for which the contract provides merely a factual background.
Under art. 808-quater cod. proc. civ., where there is doubt an arbitration agreement must be interpreted as extending arbitral jurisdiction to all disputes arising from the contract or the relationship to which the agreement relates.
The coexistence, in the same contract, of an arbitration clause and a clause derogating from territorial jurisdiction in favour of a designated ordinary court is not in itself incompatible with the parties' intention to arbitrate; reading both provisions systematically and in favour of their effectiveness under arts. 1363 and 1367 cod. civ., the judicial clause must be understood as applying to non-arbitrable disputes, to those for which the contract provides merely a factual background, and to the obtaining of relief that a panel of arbitrators cannot grant.
Arbitral jurisdiction does not constitute an exception or derogation from State jurisdiction but a fully alternative remedy; in application of the favor arbitrati principle introduced by Law no. 40 of 2006, the construction of an arbitration agreement must favour the broadest extension of arbitral jurisdiction.
Where an arbitration clause is in force, the ordinary court seised must declare lack of jurisdiction in favour of the arbitral panel and grant the parties the time-limit under art. 50 cod. proc. civ. for the reassignment of the case before that panel.