In the matter of arbitration, the inconsistency of the arbitral award referred to in art. 829 co. 1 n. 11 cod. proc. civ., for the purposes of permitting a challenge for nullity, does not correspond to that referred to in art. 360 co. 1 n. 5 cod. proc. civ., but is to be understood in the sense that the conflict must emerge between the several components of the operative part or between the reasoning and the operative part, whereas an internal contradiction between the several parts of the reasoning does not constitute a defect as such, but only where it prevents the reconstruction of the logical and legal reasoning underlying the decision owing to the total absence of reasoning referable to its functional model.
The proceedings for the challenge of the arbitral award for nullity pursuant to art. 829 cod. proc. civ. comprise two phases, of which the first, rescinding, has as its object solely the ascertainment of any nullities on account of errores in procedendo or failures to observe rules of law, without the Court of Appeal being able to make findings of fact.
The challenge for nullity of the arbitral award is a challenge of limited review, with the consequence that, given the exhaustive nature of the grounds of challenge, if reasoning in the arbitral award exists, whether or not it is to be shared, it is inviolable, a re-examination of the merits of the arbitral decision not being permissible.
The conflict between the reasoning of the arbitral tribunal and the opinions of the dissenting arbitrator does not constitute an internal inconsistency in the reasoning of the arbitral award relevant pursuant to art. 829 co. 1 n. 11 cod. proc. civ.