Article 807 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires an arbitration clause to be in writing to be valid. This requirement may be satisfied by an exchange of letters containing an offer and acceptance. This interpretation serves the need to make the requirement less formal while preserving its essential core: that there be an effective meeting of minds, evidenced in writing, about arbitration and what it covers.
The rules on limitation cannot be considered matters of public policy for challenging an arbitral award under Article 829, paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These rules protect essentially private interests - those of the person against whom a claim is made and those of the claimant who has the power to prevent the claim being time-barred.
In challenging arbitral awards, the reference to public policy in Article 829, paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be interpreted narrowly. It refers only to the fundamental and mandatory rules of the legal system. It does not include a broader notion of public policy that would cover all mandatory rules.
In proceedings to set aside an arbitral award for nullity, the grounds must be stated specifically. It is not necessary to give the exact names of the legal provisions that were violated. But it must be clear from the overall challenge what rule or legal principle the arbitrators violated, even if it is not precisely identified.