The defect of inconsistency in the arbitral award relevant for the purposes of art. 829 co. 1 n. 11 cod. proc. civ. exists only where there is a conflict between the different components of the operative part or between the reasoning and the operative part, whereas internal contradictions within the reasoning alone are material only where they preclude the reconstruction of the logical process followed by the arbitrators.
The absence of reasoning in the arbitral award, as a ground of nullity within the meaning of art. 829 co. 1 n. 5 cod. proc. civ., arises only where the reasoning is entirely lacking or is so deficient as to be merely apparent, amounting to an absence of reasoning.
Where one of the parties to the arbitral proceedings has its seat abroad, art. 830 co. 2 cod. proc. civ. confines the proceedings before the court of appeal to the rescinding phase alone, to the exclusion of the rescissory phase.
In an appeal on points of law against the judgment rendered on the challenge of the arbitral award, the complaint of nullity of the award for infringement of rules of law within the meaning of art. 360 co. 1 n. 3 cod. proc. civ. requires explicit identification of the erroneous legal rule applied by the arbitrators and cannot be reduced to a mere allegation of gaps in the investigation or reasoning.