Arbitration and Interim Measures in Italy

Legal foundations, judicial safeguards and comparative perspectives

TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. Historical development and thesis: 1.1 The pre-reform framework;

1.2 The 2003 corporate arbitration regime; 1.3 Comparative backdrop and the trajectory toward alignment; 1.4 The 2022 reform and the thesis of this paper – 2. Legal basis and substantive perimeter of arbitral interim relief: 2.1 Legal source and form of conferral; 2.2 Substantive limits and Article 700 CPC; 2.3 Corporate arbitration within the general framework; 2.4 Effects inter partes and the interface with third parties – 3. Temporal allocation and relation between arbitral tribunals and courts: 3.1 Timing and forum allocation; 3.2 Judicial review of arbitral interim orders (Article 818-bis CPC); 3.3 Implementation before the ordinary courts (Article 818-ter CPC); 3.4 Exclusivity after constitution and the debate on selective concurrency – 4. Emergency Arbitrator: 4.1 Emergency relief before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal; 4.2 Institutional frameworks (CAM Rules and ICC Rules); 4.3 Comparative perspectives on enforceability of EA relief – 5. Effectiveness, implementation, and advantages: 5.1 Execution and implementation in Italy; 5.2 Advantages of arbitral interim measures – 6. Conclusion – 7. Bibliography.

1. Historical development and thesis

1.1. The pre-reform framework

In arbitration interim measures serve two functions that final awards cannot deliver on time.

First, they preserve the usefulness of the future decision by preventing irreversible harm or the dissipation of assets and evidence. Second, they safeguard procedural fairness under pressure, for example by keeping a contractual relationship stable long enough for the merits to be decided. In Italy, the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”)1 long assigned these functions to the ordinary courts. Interim relief was granted on a probabilistic assessment, and its effectiveness depended on the court’s power to compel compliance. Arbitral tribunals could not themselves generate enforceable coercion. As a result, parties to arbitrations who needed urgent protection, for instance a freeze on the enforcement of a bank guarantee or an order to preserve perishable goods, had to apply to the court even where an arbitration agreement governed the merits.

1 See C.P.C. n. 1443, Apr. 21, 1942 (Italian Code of Civil Procedure of 1942, Pub. L. No. 1443) (It.) [hereinafter Code of Civil Procedure].

1.2. The 2003 corporate arbitration regime In 2003 a special regime was introduced for corporate disputes.2 Within that framework,

arbitral tribunals were empowered to suspend the effectiveness of shareholders’ resolutions,

where this power was expressly provided for in the company’s articles of association.3 The aim was to protect corporate governance against tactical use of resolutions while keeping the dispute in the arbitral forum chosen by the company and its shareholders. Outside the corporate context, the ordinary path for interim protection continued to be judicial.

1.3. Comparative backdrop and the trajectory toward alignment

From 2006 onward, the architecture of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International

Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”)4 became the international reference point. Several

European jurisdictions had already moved to an arbitration-centered system for interim relief before Italy. In England, Section 38 of the Arbitration Act 19965 grants tribunals procedural powers necessary for conducting the arbitration, while Section 486 allows the parties to confer on the tribunal the power to grant the remedies listed, expressed in terms that parallel judicial relief. Germany adopted the Model Law template through § 1041(1) ZPO in the 1998 reform,7 expressly authorizing arbitrators to grant interim measures. Spain’s Ley 60/2003, Article 23,8 likewise empowers arbitrators to order necessary interim measures, including security. France’s 2011 reform9 introduced Article 1468 of the Code de procédure civile, 10 which acknowledges arbitral interim powers in the domestic framework.

Against this background, the Model Law’s approach to court-arbitration coordination (tribunal empowered to issue interim measures, with courts providing pre-constitution support and recognition and enforcement) set the benchmark toward which Italian practice gradually converged and that the 2022 reform11 ultimately embraced.

2 See D.Lgs. 17 gennaio 2003, n. 5 arts 34-37 (It.) (Italian Law of 2003, Pub. L. No. 5, arts 34-37) (concerning the definition of proceedings relating to company law and financial intermediation, as well as banking and credit matters). 3 See id., art. 35(5).

4 See UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, UN Doc. A/40/17 (June 21, 1985).

5 See Arbitration Act 1996, c. 23, s. 38 (UK) (general powers of the arbitral tribunal, including security for costs and measures relating to evidence and property). 6 See id., s. 48 (UK) (remedies; tribunal has the same powers as the court to grant listed relief, including declarations, injunctions, and, in defined cases, specific performance). 7 See Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), § 1041(1) (Ger.) (as amended by the Act on the Reform of the Law of Arbitration, BGBl. I 1997, 3224) (authorizing arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures). 8 See Ley 60/2003, de 23 de diciembre, de Arbitraje, art. 23 (Spain) (empowering arbitrators to order necessary interim measures, including security). 9 See Décret n. 2011-48 du 13 janvier 2011, portant réforme de l’arbitrage (Fr.) (recasting Book IV of the Code de procédure civile). 10 See Décret n. 75-1123, Dec. 5, 1975 (Code de procédure civile) (Fr.), art. 1468 (acknowledging arbitral interim powers within the domestic framework).

11 See D.Lgs. 10 ottobre 2022, n. 149 (It.) (Italian Law of 2022, Pub. L. No. 149) (concerning the implementation of the Italian Law of 2021, Pub. L. No. 206, delegating to the Government for the efficiency of the civil process and for the revision of the regulation of alternative dispute resolution tools and urgent measures for the rationalization of proceedings in the field of personal and family rights as well as in the field of enforcement).

1.4. The 2022 reform and the thesis of this paper

The 2022 reform recast the CPC on interim measures in arbitration 12 and consolidated

corporate arbitration in the CPC itself.

13 The new framework allows parties to confer interim- measure powers on arbitral tribunals, provides a dedicated form of judicial review, and entrusts

courts with implementation. Building on that framework, the paper argues that party conferral is the central hinge of the system; that judicial safeguards are what make arbitral interim relief practically viable; that the scope of relief is shaped by the domestic procedural law, including the functional space of Article 700 CPC;14 and that effectiveness ultimately depends on a coherent alignment between the chosen seat of arbitration and the jurisdiction in which implementation must take place.

2. Legal basis and substantive perimeter of arbitral interim relief

2.1. Legal source and form of conferral

Interim measures are governed by Article 818 of the CPC, which states that:

“The parties, by means of the arbitration agreement or a written act prior to the initiation

of the arbitration proceedings, including by reference to arbitration rules, may grant the

arbitrators the power to issue interim measures. The arbitrators’ competence on interim

measures is exclusive.

Prior to the acceptance of the sole arbitrator or the establishment of the arbitral tribunal,

the request for interim measures shall be filed before the competent court pursuant to

Article 669-quinquies.” 15 The provision adopts a party-autonomy model. Interim-measure powers arise because the parties confer them to the tribunal through a written arbitration agreement, or a separate written instrument concluded before the arbitration begins. The provision expressly allows this intention to be expressed per relationem – that is, by referring to arbitration rules that confer interim-measure powers on arbitrators. In administered arbitrations, a clear and unambiguous reference to rules that contain such powers normally suffices to express the parties’ will. Examples include Article 26(1) of the Camera Arbitrale di Milano (“Italian Chamber of Arbitration”) (“CAM”) Rules 16 and Article 28 of the ICC (“International Chamber of Commerce”) Rules, 17 both of which recognize tribunal authority to order interim or provisional.

12 See Code of Civil Procedure, supra note 1, art. 818.

13 See id., arts 838-bis-838-quinquies.

14 See id., Code of Civil Procedure, supra note 1, art. 700.

15 See id., art. 818.

16 CAM (Milan Chamber of Arbitration) Arbitration Rules (2023), art. 26(1): “Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, at request of a party, the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to grant all urgent and provisional measures of protection, also of anticipatory nature, that are no barred by mandatory provisions applicable to the proceedings.”

17 ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Arbitration Rules (2021), art. 28(1): “Unless the parties have otherwise agreed, as soon as the file has been transmitted to it, the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, order any interim or conservatory measure it deems appropriate. The arbitral tribunal may make the granting of any such measure subject to appropriate security being furnished by the requesting party. Any such measure shall take the form of an order, giving reasons, or of an award, as the arbitral tribunal considers appropriate.” No special formula is required, provided that the intention is unmistakable and expressed in writing prior to the commencement of the arbitration. Two drafting cautions follow the statute’s structure and from judicial practice. First, the reference should be sufficiently explicit to avoid disputes over scope. A short sentence is typically sufficient, for example that the parties “agree that the arbitral tribunal may order interim or provisional measures in accordance with the [CAM/ICC] Rules”. Second, because implementation takes place before the courts under domestic procedural law, it is advisable to align the reference with both the intended seat of arbitration and the likely forum of enforcement, so that the tribunal’s measures are framed in forms that the court of implementation can effectively sustain.

2.2. Substantive limits and Article 700 CPC

Within the Italian procedural system, an arbitral tribunal may grant only those interim measures recognized by the CPC. This includes the specific remedies expressly regulated by the CPC and, crucially, the general urgent remedy under Article 700, which operates as a residual clause when no specific statutory measure fits the case.18 Article 700 requires, cumulatively, that the situation is not already governed by a dedicated interim remedy, that delaying protection would cause serious and irreparable harm, and that the applicant shows a probable right on a reasoned, summary assessment (corresponding to the familiar fumus boni iuris and periculum in mora articulated in domestic terms).19

The merits requirement is not a mere formality: it ties urgent protection to a plausible claim

and distinguishes the Italian model from other jurisdictions that apply a lighter or differently

framed merits test. In practice, the tribunal must shape the requested protection in forms that align with the Code, drawing on Article 700 where the situation is atypical but the urgency is concrete and the merits showing is credible.

A simple example illustrates the point. A buyer under a time-sensitive supply contract alleges

that the seller is about to divert production to a third party, jeopardizing a seasonal campaign. No codified interim remedy is tailored to this scenario, yet the risk of non-recoverable loss is evident, and the contractual entitlement appears, on a summary reading, well founded. In such circumstances, the tribunal may issue a narrowly framed order preserving the status quo for a short period, grounding its authority in Article 700 and calibrating the timing and scope to avoid pre-judging the merits. The corollary is that remedies lacking a basis in Italian procedural law cannot be imported simply by label (for example, classic common-law “security for costs”).

What matters is whether the requested protection corresponds, in substance, to a form of relief that the Code is prepared to sustain.

2.3. Corporate arbitration within the general framework

Within the general regime lies a statutory rule specific to corporate disputes. Article 838-ter(4) CPC authorizes arbitral tribunals to suspend the effectiveness of shareholders’ resolutions, with appeal to the Court of Appeal and publicity in the companies register. 20 The provision coordinates with Article 818:21 the suspension power exists ex lege for validity challenges to resolutions, whereas other corporate interim measures continue to depend on party conferral under Article 818. This preserves a coherent structure. It stabilizes corporate governance within arbitration while maintaining the general framework for other forms of urgent relief.

2.4. Effects inter partes and the interface with third parties

Interim orders bind the parties. Where effectiveness requires action by, or coercion against,

third parties (e.g., a bank holding a guarantee or a warehouse operator with custody of goods), the system relies on court implementation mechanisms. Under Article 818-ter CPC, 22

implementation proceeds before the competent court, which provides the coercive support and ancillary measures needed for the order to operate in practice. Parties can reduce friction in advance by using contractual mechanisms, such as escrow arrangements or preservation undertakings with custodians, that are designed to align with potential tribunal orders and, where necessary, with court enforcement.

3. Temporal allocation and relation between arbitral tribunals and courts

3.1. Timing and forum allocation

The allocation of authority over interim measures turns on timing and on whether the parties

have conferred powers under Article 818 CPC. Before acceptance of the sole arbitrator or

constitution of the tribunal, applications for interim measures are filed with the ordinary courts pursuant to Article 669-quinquies CPC 23. After acceptance or constitution, and provided that interim-measure powers have been conferred, competence lies with the arbitral tribunal between the parties. This sequence ensures that urgency is addressed without delay at the outset and that, once the arbitral forum is operational, protective measures are integrated into the same proceeding that will decide the merits.

A related point concerns the order in which fora are seized. If, at the time of acceptance or

constitution, an application is already pending before the court, that specific application

remains with the court. Conversely, when the tribunal is in a position to deliberate, a later court filing that seeks the same protective objective should be declined so that the urgent phase proceeds coherently within the arbitration. The same approach applies in corporate disputes.

Article 838-ter(4) CPC 24 makes suspension of shareholders’ resolutions available in

arbitration; when a tribunal is in place, that remedy belongs in the arbitral forum, while the

court remains available beforehand or for implementation steps that require state coercion.

20 See id., art. 838-ter(4).

21 See id., art. 818.

22 See id., art. 818-ter.

23 See id., art. 669-quinquies.

24 See id., art. 838-ter(4).Arbitration and Interim Measures in Italy 6

3.2. Judicial review of arbitral interim orders (Article 818-bis CPC)

Arbitral interim orders are subject to a dedicated appeal before the Court of Appeal. The review is focused on legality. The court examines whether the tribunal acted within the statutory perimeter of interim relief, respected due process, and complied with public policy. It is not a rehearing on the merits.

This form of review has practical implications for drafting. Orders that identify the legal basis

within the CPC, explain why urgency warrants intervention, and show that the measure is

proportionate and time-limited are more likely to withstand appellate scrutiny. For example, a status-quo order issued under Article 700 CPC should indicate why no specific codified remedy applies, why serious and irreparable harm would occur if protection were delayed, and how the probable right justifies temporary preservation without pre-judging the merits.

3.3. Implementation before the ordinary courts (Article 818-ter CPC)

Arbitral interim orders are not self-executing titles under Article 825 CPC. 25 Implementation is sought before the competent court under Article 818-ter, using the procedural framework of Article 669-duodecies CPC 26. For arbitrations seated in Italy, the competent court is the court of the seat. For arbitrations seated abroad but requiring performance in Italy, competence lies with the court of the place of performance. This forum rule places state coercive tools where the order must actually operate.

Implementation is also the phase that interfaces with non-parties. If the order requires action by a bank holding a guarantee, by a warehouse operator with custody of goods, or by a platform that controls access to data, the court provides the necessary directions and enforces compliance. Where conservative seizures are involved, the court manages the conversion mechanisms provided by the Code when the provisional restraint must evolve into an enforcement step as the merits progress. The tribunal defines the scope of protection in terms that the Code can sustain, while the court gives the order practical bite.

3.4. Exclusivity after constitution and the debate on selective concurrency

Article 818 CPC adopts a party-autonomy model and then fixes the allocation of authority.

Parties may, by the arbitration agreement or a prior written act, including by reference to

institutional rules, grant the tribunal power to issue interim measures; before acceptance of the sole arbitrator or constitution of the tribunal, applications are filed with the ordinary courts pursuant to Article 669-quinquies CPC; after acceptance or constitution, competence over interim measures is exclusive between the parties in the arbitral forum. The prevailing view gives full effect to this sequence. Exclusivity after constitution promotes coherence between urgency and the merits, avoids duplicate first-instance determinations, and limits inconsistent outcomes. It also fits the architecture of judicial safeguards: legality review lies with the Court of Appeal under Article 818-bis CPC27 and practical effectiveness is secured through court.

25 See id., art. 825.

26 See id., art. 669-duodecies.

27 See id., art. 818-bis.

Implementation under Article 818-ter CPC 28. The first-seized logic operates within this

framework as a housekeeping rule: if a court application is already pending at the moment of acceptance or constitution, that application remains with the court; conversely, once the

tribunal can deliberate, a later court filing seeking the same protection should be declined.

A different view, grounded in the same principle of party autonomy, admits narrow, purpose-

specific concurrency where the clause clearly reserves a direct route to the courts for defined scenarios that intrinsically require state machinery or primarily affect non-parties (e.g., directions to a bank that holds a guarantee or to a third-party custodian). Where concurrency is adopted, drafting must be precise and coordinated with the implementation stage under Article 818-ter CPC, so as to avoid overlap and forum shopping, and consistent with sectoral provisions such as Article 838-ter(4) CPC on the suspension of shareholders’ resolutions. On balance, exclusivity after constitution remains the default; any concurrency operates only to the extent the parties have clearly provided for it and only for genuinely exceptional categories.

4. Emergency Arbitrator

4.1. Emergency relief before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal

Emergency relief under institutional rules operates in the short interval between the filing of

the request for arbitration and the acceptance of the sole arbitrator or the constitution of the tribunal. Its function is to stabilize the factual and legal situation and to preserve the utility of the future award. In the Italian system this pre-constitution phase coexists with Article 818(2) CPC, which directs that before acceptance or constitution applications for interim measures are filed with the ordinary courts pursuant to Article 669-quinquies CPC. Within this framework, an Emergency Arbitrator (“EA”) may issue an inter partes order that binds the parties contractually, but such an order has no direct effect on third parties and is not susceptible to forced implementation in Italy; coercive force and directions to non-parties are available only through the courts.

This allocation can be seen in a typical guarantee scenario. A seller threatens to call a bank

guarantee to gain leverage in price negotiations. Before the tribunal is in place, the buyer may obtain an EA order requiring preservation of the contractual status quo between the parties. However, the bank is a third party and cannot be compelled by the EA’s order. If immediate restraint on the bank is indispensable, the buyer must apply to the court under Article 669- quinquies CPC. Once the tribunal is constituted and the parties have conferred powers under Article 818 CPC, the tribunal should promptly confirm, modify, or supersede the emergency disposition; if execution in Italy is required, the party then seeks judicial implementation in the competent court under Article 818-ter CPC using Article 669-duodecies CPC as the procedural vehicle. Where the tribunal issues the interim order, appeal on legality-focused grounds lies, where applicable, to the Court of Appeal under Article 818-bis CPC. The sequence is therefore coherent: court for pre-constitution coercion and third-party reach, EA for rapid party-to-party stabilization, tribunal control and, when needed, court implementation after constitution.

28 See id., art. 818-ter.Arbitration and Interim Measures in Italy 8

4.2. Institutional frameworks (CAM Rules and ICC Rules)

Under the CAM Rules, Article 44 29 establishes the EA procedure (application, rapid

appointment, compressed timetable, and a reasoned order effective until the tribunal is

constituted). The rules also provide that the tribunal, once constituted, may confirm, vary, or

revoke earlier emergency relief; Italian commentary ties this to the parties’ per relationem

choice of CAM rules and the allocation under Article 818 CPC.

Under the ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 29 and Appendix V set out the EA regime 30. A party

may apply for urgent measures that cannot await the tribunal’s constitution. The emergency

decision takes the form of an order, and the subsequently constituted tribunal may confirm,

modify, or revoke it.

4.3. Comparative perspectives on enforceability of EA relief

Several Model Law jurisdictions provide express judicial routes to recognize or enforce EA

decisions, and these routes materially affect pre-constitution strategy and the selection of the seat. Singapore amended the International Arbitration Act31 in 2012 to include an EA within the statutory definition of arbitral tribunal, thereby allowing courts to give effect to emergency decisions within the Act’s interim-measures framework; Singapore courts have also accepted, in principle, applications concerning foreign-seated emergency decisions. Hong Kong enacted Part 3A of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609),32 under which emergency relief granted by an emergency arbitrator, whether made in or outside Hong Kong, is enforceable with leave in the same manner as an order or direction of the Court. India, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v Future Retail Ltd (2021), recognizes and enforces emergency arbitrator orders in India-seated arbitrations under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act;33 direct enforcement of foreign-seated emergency orders remains more limited. New Zealand amended its statute34 in 2016 to extend the definition of arbitral tribunal to include an emergency arbitrator, integrating emergency decisions into the statutory enforcement architecture.

While in these seats emergency-arbitrator relief can obtain court-backed effect without re-

issuance by the subsequently constituted tribunal, in Italy emergency-arbitrator orders operate only inter partes before constitution and any coercive or third-party effects must be pursued through the courts under Article 669-quinquies CPC or, after constitution and a tribunal order, through judicial implementation under Article 818-ter CPC.35

29 See CAM (Milan Chamber of Arbitration) Arbitration Rules (2023), art. 44 (Emergency Arbitrator).

30 See ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Arbitration Rules (2021), art. 29; App. V.

31 See International Arbitration Act, Cap. 143A, s 2(1) (Sing.), as amended by International Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2012, No. 12 of 2012.

32 See Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 609, pt 3A (HK) (emergency relief enforceable with leave of the Court).

33 See Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v Future Retail Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 1 (India SC); Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of 1996 (India), s 17(2).

34 See Arbitration Amendment Act 2016 (NZ), s 4.

35 See Code of Civil Procedure, supra note 1, arts 669-quinquies, 818-ter.Arbitration and Interim Measures in Italy 9

5. Effectiveness, implementation, and advantages

5.1. Execution and implementation in Italy

An arbitral interim order attains coercive force in Italy only through court implementation. The party seeking execution applies to the competent court under Article 818-ter CPC, using Article 669-duodecies CPC as the procedural vehicle 36. Competence lies with the court of the seat when the arbitration is seated in Italy, or with the court of the place of performance in Italy when the seat is abroad, but execution is required domestically. Implementability turns on how the order is framed: it should specify exactly who must do what, where, and by when; remain proportionate and time-limited; and fit a measure the CPC recognizes (including the residual route of Article 700 CPC37 where no specific codified measure applies). Clear reasons on probable right and serious, irreparable harm help the court translate the order into enforceable directions without re-litigating urgency. Where appropriate, the tribunal or the court may require counter-security to balance the risk of error and mitigate potential harm pending the merits.

Because interim protection is granted on a probabilistic assessment and under time pressure, the arbitrator faces a more exposed liability profile (pursuant to Article 813-ter CPC38) than a judge, who is largely shielded by a state-liability regime. Sensible safeguards reduce that exposure: strict adherence to CPC limits; a reasoned linkage between the evidence and the relief granted; calibrated duration with prompt review; and accurate minute-keeping of the urgency analysis. These features also align the order with the legality-focused appeal to the Court of Appeal under Article 818-bis CPC,39 strengthening both enforceability and resilience.

5.2. Advantages of arbitral interim measures

Arbitral interim measures offer distinctive advantages once a tribunal is constituted and

empowered, when compared with court proceedings. The first is continuity. The same decision - maker handles both urgency and the merits, maintains a unified evidentiary record, and coordinates the timetable so that provisional relief, compliance monitoring, and the merits phase are sequenced coherently. This continuity reduces duplication, avoids re-briefing before a different forum, and enables adjustments to interim relief as the factual picture evolves.

A second advantage is expertise. Party appointment enables selection of arbitrators with the

technical competencies the dispute requires (finance, construction, intellectual property, or

data-intensive operations). Such specialization typically improves the assessment of prima

facie entitlement and urgency and yields measures that are proportionate, precisely tailored, and practically implementable. A third advantage is procedural flexibility with due process: within the applicable procedural framework, tribunals can structure concise submissions, focused (including remote) hearings, and promptly reasoned orders that address genuine urgency while preserving the right to be heard. Finally, confidentiality is a material benefit.

36 See id., arts 818-ter, 669-duodecies.

37 See id., art. 700.

38 See id., art. 813-ter.

39 See id., art. 818-bis.Arbitration and Interim Measures in Italy

Non-public handling of applications and orders protects commercially sensitive information

and stabilizes business relationships during the dispute, without sacrificing the discipline of

reasoned decisions and enforceable outcomes.

6. Conclusion

The 2022 reform has repositioned Italy within a coherent court-arbitration architecture for

urgency. Party autonomy is the hinge: interim-measure powers exist because the parties confer them under Article 818 CPC, competence becomes exclusive between the parties once the sole arbitrator accepts or the tribunal is constituted, and the courts retain two indispensable roles.

Before constitution, applications are addressed to the ordinary courts under Article 669-

quinquies CPC. After constitution, judicial safeguards secure legality and effectiveness through the appeal to the Court of Appeal under Article 818-bis CPC and implementation under Article 818-ter CPC. The content of relief remains delimited by domestic procedural law, with Article 700 CPC supplying the residual pathway when no specific measure fits, and corporate disputes are coordinated through Article 838-ter(4) CPC.

Within this framework Emergency Arbitrator relief serves a bridging function only. Before

constitution it operates inter partes and does not produce coercive effects on non-parties in

Italy. Any need for immediate state coercion or third-party reach must be channeled to the

courts, and once constituted the tribunal should confirm, modify, or replace any emergency

disposition so that implementation can proceed in the ordinary way. Comparative experience shows that some Model Law seats provide direct enforcement routes for emergency relief; the Italian system instead preserves the division of functions between tribunal and courts. Effectiveness ultimately depends less on abstract powers than on design and execution. Clauses should confer interim-measure authority in clear, written terms, including by reference to institutional rules where appropriate, and should be drafted with the forum of implementation in mind. Once constituted, the arbitral forum offers distinctive advantages for urgent protection, including continuity with the merits, specialized expertise, procedural flexibility consistent with due process, and confidentiality. Read as a whole, the Italian model now provides a reliable path from party conferral to enforceable protection; whether that path delivers in practice turns on careful drafting, disciplined adjudication, and coordinated forum strategy.Arbitration and Interim Measures in Italy 11

7. Bibliography

7.1. Legislation and institutional rules

- Italian Code of Civil Procedure (Codice di procedura civile): Articles 700, 669-

quinquies, 669-duodecies, 813-ter, 818, 818-bis, 818-ter, 825, 838-ter(4).

- United Kingdom Arbitration Act 1996: Sections 38 and 48.

- German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO): § 1041(1).

- Spanish Ley 60/2003 de Arbitraje: Article 23.

- French Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile): Article 1468.

- Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (2013): Cap. 609, Part 3A.

- Singapore International Arbitration Act (2012): Cap. 143A, Section 2(1).

- New Zealand Arbitration Amendment Act (2016): Section 4.

- UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (2006): Articles 17-

17A.

- CAM (Milan Chamber of Arbitration) Rules (2023): Articles 26(1) and 44.

- ICC Arbitration Rules (2021): Articles 28-29 and Appendix V.

- LCIA Rules (2020): Article 25.1.

- SCC Rules (2023): Article 37(1) and Appendix II.

- SIAC Rules (2016): Rules 30.1-30.2 and Schedule 1. 7.2. Literature

- Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edition, Kluwer Law International, 2021).

- Neil Andrews, Andrews on Civil Processes: Court Proceedings, Arbitration and Mediation (3rd edition, Kluwer Law International 2021).

- Stephan Balthasar (ed), International Commercial Arbitration: International Conventions, Country Reports and Comparative Analysis (2nd edition, Beck-Hart- Nomos 2021).

- Filippo Corsini, I poteri cautelari degli arbitri ai sensi del nuovo art. 818 c.p.c. (in Rivista di diritto processuale, fascicolo 1, 2023, 866).

- Laura Salvaneschi, I poteri cautelari degli arbitri e l’arbitrato amministrato (in Rivista dell'Arbitrato, fascicolo 4, 2023, 829).

- Ilaria Pagni, Una nuova scelta: l'opzione per la cautela arbitrale. Modalità ed effetti (in Rivista dell’Arbitrato, fascicolo 2, 2025, 169).

- Antonio Briguglio, La clausola di attribuzione agli arbitri del potere di concedere misure cautelari (in Rivista dell’Arbitrato, fascicolo 2, 2024, 297).

- Margaret L. Moses, Judicial Assistance for Arbitration (in The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 3rd edition, 2017, chapter 5, 110).

- Swargodeep Sarkar, Subramanian SR, Enforcing Emergency Arbitral Awards: Global and Indian Perspectives (in Liverpool Law Review, volume 45, 2024, 445).