In proceedings for the challenge of the arbitral award pursuant to art. 829 co. 1 n. 4 cod. proc. civ. on the ground that the award was rendered beyond the limits of the arbitration agreement, the ascertainment of the parties’ agreement constitutes an inquiry of fact entrusted to the arbitrators, which may be impugned only where the reasoning is so inadequate as to preclude the reconstruction of the logical process followed by the arbitrators, or for violation of the rules of artt. 1362 ff. cod. civ.; the party challenging the arbitral award may not accordingly confine himself to a generic invocation of the rules of construction, but must specify the canons concretely infringed and the point at which and the manner in which the arbitrators departed therefrom.
In the matter of concessions for public services, disputes relating to indemnities, charges and other payments, concerning the performance phase of the relationship, fall within the jurisdiction of the ordinary court and may be referred to arbitration, including by virtue of arbitration clauses entered into prior to the coming into force of art. 6 co. 2 l. 205/2000, given that art. 5 co. 2 l. 1034/1971 already provided for the jurisdiction of the ordinary court in respect of such disputes.
In the matter of concessions for public services, the dividing line between the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative court and the jurisdiction of the ordinary court is to be found at the point of conclusion of the contract or of the final award of the concession; disputes relating to the performance phase of the relationship, including claims for damages for breach of contractual obligations, belong to the jurisdiction of the ordinary court, as they concern subjective rights asserted on a footing of equality by the private party against the public body.