A recent decision issued by the Italian Supreme Court (decision No. 20078 of 24 July 2019, Italian text available here) addresses the issue of the wording of an arbitration clause contained in general terms and conditions.
Two ICSID Arbitral Tribunals, on the basis of similar reasons, reached the same conclusion: Achmea decision (available here) does not affect their jurisdiction.
A recent decision issued by Italian Supreme Court (No. 17159 of 26 June 2019, Italian text available here) gives me the chance to make brief comments on the scope of possible review on the merits of arbitration awards by Italian State Courts seised in proceedings for setting them aside.
The so-called "Decree Unblock-Construction" ("Decreto Sblocca-Cantieri") (decree No. 32 of 18 April 2019, converted into law No. 55 of 14 June 2019) reintroduced, in the Italian system of public procurement, the advisory technical committee ("Comitato Consultivo Tecnico"), already provided for by Article 207 of legislative decree No. 50 of 18 April 2016 (repealed by legislative decree No. 56 of 19 April 2017).
The Italian Supreme Court has recently upheld its doctrine on the circulation of the arbitration clause in case of credit assignment (Italian Supreme Court, First Civil Chamber, decision No. 16127 of 14 June 2019, Italian text available here).
I have already examined this topic (in this post); nonetheless, in the light of its relevance, I believe that it is worth re-examining it.
Corporate arbitration is a major topic for Italian arbitration practitioners. The Italian Supreme Court developed a doctrine and laid down principles not entirely right. Some lower Courts tried to take a more appropriate approach, but to no avail (I discussed this issue, for instance, in this post).
A recent decision issued by the Court of first instance of Bologna (No. 1378 of 13 June 2019, Italian text availabe here) ostensibly applied the right doctrine (or the doctrine I deem right); nonetheless, it came to the wrong conclusion.
The wording of the arbitration clause is of utmost importance: this is a subject I have already dealt with (for instance in this post). A recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan (No. 2528 of 10 June 2019, Italian text available here) confirms this importance also with respect to the possible recourse for setting aside the award.
Lucy Greenwood, a collegue from the UK, is promoting the idea of a Pledge for Greener Arbitrations.
I think that this is a good idea and therefore I decided to share the link to take the pledge. Continue reading "Pledge for greener arbitrations"