The distinction between arbitration and contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale) lies in the fact that in arbitration the parties intend the award to be capable of being declared enforceable and to produce the effects referred to in art. 825 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with observance of the rules of arbitral procedure, whereas in contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale) they intend to entrust the arbitrator with the resolution of disputes solely through a contractual instrument; in case of doubt, contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale) must be preferred, since arbitration is exceptional in nature.
The existence of an arbitration clause providing for arbitration entails a ruling of lack of jurisdiction, whereas the existence of an arbitration clause providing for contractual arbitration (arbitrato irrituale) renders the claim inadmissible as a matter going to the merits.
The inadmissibility of a claim or the lack of jurisdiction by reason of an arbitration clause may be raised only upon objection by the interested party, not of the court's own motion, and accordingly does not preclude an application for, or the issuance of, a payment order, the debtor retaining the right to raise the objection of inadmissibility before the court hearing the opposition.
A petition for a preliminary technical assessment with a view to conciliation under art. 696 bis of the Code of Civil Procedure is inadmissible where the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of arbitrators by virtue of an arbitration clause providing for arbitration.