The Court of Appeal of Venice, in its decision no. 2722 of 30 November 2015 (Italian text available here), deals with the issue of the possible review on the merits of an arbitration award rendered in proceedings commenced after the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 40 of 2 February 2006 pursuant to an arbitration clause stipulated prior to the reform. Read more “Review of an award on the merits”
Optional arbitration
An arbitration clause stipulates that all the disputes arising out of the agreement may be referred to an Arbitral Tribunal. Is that an optional arbitration, in the sense that the claimant may choose between the Court and the Arbitral Tribunal? Does the jurisdiction exclusively rest with the Arbitral Tribunal? Or is it a void or ineffective arbitration clause?
I already talked about this issue in this article, when analysing an order rendered by the Court of first instance of Milan. Recent rulings of the I Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Bologna (decision no. 1884 of 12 November 2015, Italian text available here) and the VI Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (decision no. 22039 of 28 October 2015, Italian text available here) have shed light on this issue again.
Grounds for setting aside
Decision no. 22007 of the I Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (Italian text available here) deals with the issue of the grounds for setting aside an arbitration award delivered in proceedings commenced pursuant to an arbitration clause stipulated before the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 40 of 2 February 2006.
Preliminary agreement and arbitration clause
An arbitration clause stipulated in the preliminary agreement (that is, a kind of agreement to agree, which is enforceable under Italian law) was not included in the final agreement. In any case, the disputes concerning the later have to be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. This was the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Venice (decision no. 2361 of 12 October 2015 of the I Civil Chamber of the Appeals Court of Venice, Italian text available here).
The case of the additional preposition
A recent judgment of the Supreme Court (decision no. 18707 of 22 September 2015, Italian text available here) dealt with a very peculiar case. A party objected that an arbitration clause was unenforceable, since it included an additional preposition (more precisely the preposition “di”, which in Italian means “of”).
In this case, the Supreme Court, as well as the Court of first instance, avoided a formalistic excess. The Court did not repeat the old case, referred to by Gaius, in which a party lost the case due to a lexical mistake.
Arbitration and statute of limitations
The First Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court requested the First President of the Court to transfer to the Supreme Court sitting en banc a case concerning the relationship between arbitration and the limitation period provided for by a specific statue of limitations. The dispute concerned Article 2527(3) of the Italian Civil Code, which states that the member excluded from a cooperative company is entitled to challenge the relevant resolution within 30 days of its communication. The current rule in force is Article 2533(3) of the Italian Civil Code, which extended the limitation period to sixty days, the same limitation period provided for by Article 2287(2) of the Italian Civil Code with respect to partnerships. The Italian full text of the order no. 20101 of 7 October 2015 is available here.
Waiver of the right to arbitrate
The Court of first instance of Rome (decision no. 19215 of 28 September 2015, Italian text available here) ruled in a complex case concerning the relationship between a limited liability company and its former director. First of all, the company sued the former director before the Court, claiming his liability. In a second case (the case of the decision at hand), the former director requested the Court to issue a payment order against the company, in order to obtain the amounts allegedly owed to him. The parties did not take into account the arbitration clause stipulated in Article 26 of the Articles of association. This provision notes that “all controversies arising among the quotaholders or among the quotaholders and the company, the directors, liquidators and statutory auditors shall be settled by a sole arbitrator appointed by the President of the Certified Public Accountants Register of the place where the company has its registered office (….).” In the judicial proceedings commenced by the company, the former director objected that the Court did not have jurisdiction, due to the above mentioned arbitration clause. On its turn, the company raised this objection when challenging the payment order issued in favour of the former director.
Did the parties waive their right to arbitrate, by initiating Court proceedings?
Arbitration and shareholders’ loan
If an arbitration clause is stipulated in the company’s Articles of association, disputes between a former shareholder and the company, concerning the repayment of a shareholders’ loan, shall be referred to an Arbitral Tribunal. This is, in a nutshell, the rationale of decision no. 18316 of 17 September 2015 of the Third Civil Chamber of the Court of first instance of Rome (the Italian full text is available here).
Once again, on arbitration and companies financial statements
The Supreme Court confirmed the non arbitrability of disputes concerning the challenge of company’s resolutions approving the financial statements (order no. 17950 of 10 September 2015 of the VI Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, Italian full text available here).
Read more “Once again, on arbitration and companies financial statements”
Arbitrators’ fees
In its decision no. 17956 of 11 September 2015, the Supreme Court applied for the first time Article 816/septies of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure concerning the arbitrators’ fees. In this decision, the Court examined the scope and conditions of application of the above mentioned provision. The Italian full text of the decision is available here.