The action for annulment of an arbitral award constitutes proceedings with limited grounds for challenge, which may only be brought for specific procedural errors specifically provided for, as well as for non-observance of rules of law within the limits indicated by art. 829, para. 3, Code of Civil Procedure, and the rule of specificity in the formulation of grounds applies in consideration of the rescissory nature of such proceedings.
In an appeal to the Court of Cassation against a judgment that has decided on the challenge to an arbitral award, the review of legality must be conducted exclusively through verification of the conformity to law and adequacy of the reasoning of the judgment that decided on the challenge to the award, and the related complaint must contain a pertinent reference to the facts found by the arbitrators and the exposition of intelligible and exhaustive arguments illustrating the alleged violations.
The reference to the public policy clause made by art. 829, para. 3, Code of Civil Procedure must be interpreted as referring to the fundamental and mandatory norms of the legal system and does not imply an attenuated notion of public policy that includes all existing mandatory norms, referring to the ethical, economic, political and social principles that characterise the legal system in the various fields of social coexistence.
The proceedings for challenging an arbitral award consists of two phases, the first rescissory phase aimed at ascertaining any nullities of the award, and the second rescissory phase that follows the annulment, and in the first phase the court of appeal is not permitted to proceed with findings of fact, having to limit itself to ascertaining any nullities provided for by art. 829 Code of Civil Procedure.
The ground of appeal is inadmissible whereby, by means of the challenge for nullity of the award, the evaluation of the facts alleged and evidence acquired during the arbitral proceedings is contested because such evaluation is contractually entrusted to the institutional competence of the arbitrators.
The defect of contradictoriness referred to in art. 829, para. 1, no. 11, Code of Civil Procedure exists when the different parts of the operative part of the award are contradictory to each other or there is contradiction between the reasoning and the operative part of the award itself.