ITALY Law and Practice Contributed by: Luciano Castelli, Gian Paolo Coppola, Claudia Bosco and Matteo Creuso, LCA Studio Legale
• procedural violations – failure to comply with man - datory procedural steps outlined in the arbitration agreement, if not remedied; • conflict with previous rulings – the award contra - dicts a previous final and binding judicial deci - sion or an arbitration award submitted during the proceedings; and • unequal opportunity to present the case – one or both parties were denied a fair opportunity to pre - sent their arguments. Although “grounds for nullity” are the main grounds for challenging an award, Italian law also provides for a few exceptional remedies: • revocation due to fraud – if a party discovers evi - dence of fraud committed by the other party or an arbitrator after the award has been issued, revoca - tion may be sought; • revocation due to newly discovered evidence – similarly, if a party discovers crucial documents previously hidden by the actions of the other party, this too may be grounds for revocation; and • opposition by third parties – in rare cases, a third party not involved in the arbitration may challenge the award if it significantly impairs its legal rights. A party seeking to have an award declared null and void must file a summons with the court at the arbi - tration’s seat within 90 days of receiving the award. If formal service of the award never occurred, the deadline is extended to six months from the date of the last arbitrator’s signature. For challenges based on revocation due to fraud or newly discovered evi - dence, or third-party opposition, the deadline is strict - er. The interested party has 30 days from the date they become aware of the circumstances triggering the challenge to file with the court. 11.2 Excluding/Expanding the Scope of Appeal An agreement entered into by the parties for the pur - pose of excluding/extending rights to appeal will not be valid. However, the party who caused the ground for nul - lity, or waived it, or who has not objected in the first subsequent application or request to a violation of a
rule governing the conduct of the arbitral proceedings, cannot challenge the award on that ground. 11.3 Standard of Judicial Review Article 830 of the CCP aims to balance two compet - ing interests. On the one hand, it seeks to uphold the arbitrator’s authority to decide on the substance of the case. On the other hand, it aims to prevent an unrea - sonable delay in resolving the dispute if the Court of Appeal decides on the merits. The Article outlines the court’s actions upon uphold - ing an appeal for nullity of the award. If the grounds for nullity fall within a specific category, the Court of Appeal will issue a judgment setting aside the award. However, for a different set of nullity reasons outlined in the same Article, the Court of Appeals will itself decide the merits of the dispute, unless the parties have a prior agreement – either in the original arbi - tration agreement or a subsequent one – specifying otherwise. Moreover, if one of the parties, as of the date of sign - ing the arbitration agreement, resides or has its actual place of business abroad, the court of appeal shall decide the dispute on the merits only if the parties have so determined in the arbitration agreement or agree to do so. 12. Enforcement of an Award 12.1 New York Convention Italy ratified the New York Convention without any reservations. 12.2 Enforcement Procedure Articles 839 and 840 of the CCP govern the recogni - tion and enforcement of a foreign award. These Arti - cles replicate the content of Article V of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. In the first phase of the proceedings, the party seek - ing enforcement of an international award in Italy shall resort to the president of the Court of Appeal where the counterparty resides. If the counterparty resides outside of Italy, the competent Court of Appeal shall
389 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook