Qualified Arbitration and Challenge of the Award: Ruling No. 22005 of 2024

The recent ruling No. 22005 of August 5, 2024, by the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification on the topic of arbitration, particularly regarding the challenge of arbitral awards. In this article, we will analyze the main aspects of the ruling, highlighting the distinction between formal and informal arbitration and the consequences on jurisdictional competence.

Context of the Ruling

The dispute involved M. (S. V.) and R. (F. P.), with the latter contesting the arbitration procedure followed. The Court of Appeal of Bologna, in its ruling of June 17, 2022, rejected the appeals against the award, emphasizing the need to distinguish between different forms of arbitration. The Court of Cassation, by upholding the appeal, reiterated that if the arbitrators have implicitly deemed the arbitration to be formal in nature, the challenge of the award must be made according to the procedures provided for formal arbitration.

The Ruling's Headnote

Informal arbitration qualified as formal by the arbitrators - Challenge of the award - Regime. Where the arbitrators have deemed, even implicitly, the arbitration to be formal in nature, having proceeded in the forms referred to in Articles 816 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.), the challenge of the award, even if aimed at asserting the informal nature of the arbitration and the consequent procedural errors committed by the arbitrators, must be brought before the Court of Appeal, pursuant to Article 827 c.p.c. et seq., and not in the manner proper to the challenge of informal arbitration, i.e., before the ordinarily competent judge, asserting only the defects that can invalidate any manifestation of contractual will.

This headnote highlights the importance of correctly qualifying the arbitration, as a misperception of its nature can lead to serious procedural consequences. Indeed, if the arbitrators have followed the provisions of Articles 816 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure, the challenge must follow the rules of formal arbitration, even if the challenging party intends to contest its informal nature.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The ruling has several practical implications for parties involved in arbitration proceedings:

• Clarity on challenge procedures: The Court has firmly established that challenges must follow the provisions for formal arbitration, avoiding confusion and excessive litigation.
• Importance of arbitration qualification: Parties must be aware of the nature of the ongoing arbitration proceeding, as this affects legal strategies and procedural choices.
• Risk of inadmissibility: If a party files a challenge according to the procedures for informal arbitration, they risk having it declared inadmissible, with consequent prejudice to their rights.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 22005 of 2024 represents a significant step in clarifying the rules relating to arbitration in Italy. It underscores the importance of a correct interpretation of challenge procedures, highlighting that the formal nature of an arbitral award determines the scope of application of the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. Parties involved in arbitration proceedings should pay particular attention to these aspects to avoid legal inconveniences and ensure proper protection of their rights.