In the matter of the challenge of the arbitral award, the requirement of identifying the rules of law alleged to have been breached, prescribed by art. 829 co. 3 cod. proc. civ. for the purposes of the admissibility of the ground of challenge for breach of rules of law relating to the merits of the dispute, is satisfied where the rules allegedly breached are expressly referred to and set out in the body of the notice of challenge, even though they are not stated in the heading of the ground, the court hearing the challenge being unable to confine itself to an examination of the heading alone and to omit consideration of the actual content of the ground.
A judgment rendered in proceedings for the challenge of the arbitral award is vitiated by merely apparent reasoning, within the meaning of art. 132 co. 2 n. 4 cod. proc. civ., where, on the one hand, it upholds the part of the arbitral award recognising compensation for damage caused by delay on the basis that the agreement had become ineffective, and, on the other hand, declares the nullity of the arbitral award in the part in which it denied further financial claims on the different basis that the same agreement continued in force and effect, the two rulings being supported by objectively irreconcilable reasoning which does not permit the reconstruction of the logical reasoning of the decision.