The interpretation of an arbitration clause must be conducted with reference to the literal text, the common intention of the parties and their overall conduct, without the failure to refer in the clause to the formalities of institutional arbitration unequivocally indicating the contractual nature of the arbitration.
Doubt regarding the interpretation of the actual intention of the contracting parties as to the nature of the arbitration must be resolved in favour of institutional arbitration, taking into account the exceptional nature of the derogation from the rule whereby an award has the effect of a judicial judgment, in the absence of clear elements to consider that the arbitration was intended as an instrument of amicable composition.
An arbitration clause which designates the president of the court as the person to whom any dispute arising from the contract is to be referred is valid and constitutes institutional arbitration with a sole arbitrator, provided there are no impediments arising from the lack of authorisation from the Superior Council of the Judiciary or from reasons of incompatibility.