Service of proceedings challenging an arbitral award does not constitute service of the judgment for the purposes of commencing the short limitation period for appeal, since it neither provides nor presupposes legal knowledge of the judgment under challenge, and is therefore inadequate to trigger the short limitation period under Article 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Statutory provisions contemplating institutional arbitration must be strictly construed, as they constitute a derogation from ordinary jurisdiction, and expressions used in arbitration clauses must be understood in a rigorous and technical sense, excluding analogical and extensive interpretation.
Arbitral jurisdiction exists where the articles of association or resolution constitute the factual basis of the claim, but must be excluded in cases of challenge to the resolution itself, where the resolution is not the foundation of the claim but rather its elimination is sought.
In cassation proceedings against a judgment challenging an arbitral award, objections relating to the interpretation of the arbitration clause may only be raised in relation to non-observance of legal criteria for contractual interpretation or radical inadequacy of reasoning, whilst mere opposition between the interpretation proposed by the appellant and that adopted by the lower courts serves no purpose for the annulment of the decision.