Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN ITALIAN ARBITRATION LAW
Attilio M. Costabel, A.C.I. Arb.
By an Act of the Italian Parliament on 9th February 1983 (No. 78), the discipline of arbitration has been significantly changed.
Some of the major features under the existing Code of Civil Procedure are that:
- 1. Only Italian subjects can be appointed as arbitrators.
- 2. The award not only has to be issued in Italy but also has to be signed by the arbitrators there, and deposited with the nearest Magistrates Court within five days of signature.
- 3. Failing the deposit of the award within five days the award is null and void.
- 4. The deposit of the award is considered as equivalent to the deposit of an ordinary judgment, and the tax of registry due on judgments is applied to awards as well.
This set of rules (dating back to 1942) has become obsolete, even for domestic arbitration, and has caused Italy to be an unsuitable country for international arbitration. Changes have been envisaged in the draft of the new Code of Civil Procedure, which is in course of preparation. Very wisely, it was deemed that changes in arbitration law had priority.
Under the new law, the position now is that:
- 1. Foreign subjects can be appointed as arbitrators—the whole panel or the sole arbitrator can be foreign subjects.
- 2. The decision still has to be reached by the arbitrators in Italy, but the arbitrators may sign the award at different times and places, even outside of Italy. There is no need for senseless and expensive conferences for the sole purpose of signing the award.
- 3. No more deposit is required for the award to be binding between the parties. The arbitrators just have to mail the award to the parties within 10 days of the last arbitrator’s signature.
- 4. Deposit is only required for making the award enforceable in Italy.
- 5. To this effect, the strict deadline of five days has been abolished, and a longer time of one year is given, running from the day the party receives the award from the arbitrators. This would favour and encourage spontaneous compliance with the awards, and meets with the requirements of privacy which are often at the root of arbitration. Fiscal disadvantages would also be avoided.
440