This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.
THE AUTHORS:
Galileo Pozzoli, Managing Partner and Member of the International Dispute Resolution Practice Group, Squire Patton Boggs.
Letizia Ceccarelli, Senior Associate, Squire Patton Boggs.
Hoda Ghassabian, Trainee Lawyer, Squire Patton Boggs
This article offers an analysis of the key developments and emerging trends in arbitration in Italy, and judicial interpretations in the aftermath of the entry into force of the Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree No. 149/2022) (the “Reform”).
The Impact of the Reform and Judicial Interpretation
The Reform was a turning point for Italian arbitration: recalibrating and strengthening the relationship between arbitration and court proceedings while harmonizing the legal framework to international best practices. The novelties introduced by the Reform have been given operational force by courts’ decisions and emerging jurisprudence, steadily modernizing Italy’s arbitral landscape.
Greater Transparency Through the Duty to Disclose
With the Reform, appointed arbitrators are under a duty to disclose any circumstances capable of affecting, or reasonably perceived as affecting, their ability to adjudicate the dispute independently and impartially from the outset and throughout the proceedings. This development has also been crystallized and adopted in the 2023 version of the Arbitration Rules of the Milan Chamber of Arbitration (“CAM Arbitration Rules”). Failure to discharge such duty, whether by omitting the disclosure or by not revealing existing conflicts in the statement of acceptance, may give rise to a successful challenge and annulment of the arbitrator’s appointment. However, transparency should not be construed as rigid formalism. By way of example, the Tribunal of Rome (Decision No. 643 dated 16 December 2023) held that challenges must rest on serious grounds capable of affecting the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator, rather than on remote or benign connections. Accordingly, the court rejected an attempt to remove an arbitrator for failing to disclose past professional and academic interactions with counsel, finding that such links did not undermine the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality.
Interim Measures within the Powers of Arbitrators
Arguably, the most groundbreaking innovation of the Reform is the empowerment to arbitral tribunals in granting interim measures. Before the Reform, parties could only apply for interim measures before a judicial court unless an express or implicit agreement existed between the parties to confer such ability upon an arbitral tribunal. Unlike other jurisdictions, in Italy, the exercise of this power by arbitral tribunals depends on the explicit or implicit intent by the disputing parties to confer it upon the arbitrators. The Reform clarifies that the parties’ intent may be evident either through an express agreement between the parties or by way of reference to institutional arbitration rules that contain provisions granting arbitral tribunals the power to order interim measures (e.g., Art. 26 of the CAM Arbitration Rules).
Whether the parties intended to confer such powers to arbitral tribunals has been particularly relevant in relation to disputes governed by a pre-Reform arbitration clause or institutional rules. In a recent decision of the Tribunal of Milan (Decision No. 18058 dated 7 January 2025), the court held that arbitrators appointed under a clause referencing the CAM Arbitration Rules prior to the entry into force of the Reform did not have the authority to grant interim measures since the version of these rules at the time of the conclusion of the agreement did not provided for such powers. Accordingly, the court retained jurisdiction over requests for interim measures.
New Challenges in the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
The Reform consolidated the recognition and enforcement proceedings of awards issued by arbitral tribunals into one single application before domestic courts. Within this framework, a particularly notable development in Italy this year has been the widely discussed decision of the Court of Appeal of Trieste (Decision No. 226 dated 28 March 2025) concerning an ante causam request for interim measures. In this case, the award creditor sought a precautionary seizure of the award debtor’s assets before the award had been recognized and enforced. The court was confronted with the question of whether it could grant the requested preliminary measure based on an award that had yet to be recognized and enforced, relying instead on its underlying coercive nature. In its reasoning, the court held that the focus should not be on the declaratory nature of the recognition and enforcement decision, but rather on the enforceable title that arises from it following the Reform. The decision of the court crystallizes the interpretation shift towards a more substantive approach and highlights the practical implications of the Reform for recognition and enforcement of awards. While the court ultimately rejected the award creditor’s request for a precautionary seizure due to insufficient evidence of periculum in mora (i.e., serious and irreparable harm), it nevertheless affirmed that interim measures may be granted prior to a decision on the recognition and enforcement of the award. The court further noted that denying such measures could potentially contravene constitutionally grounded procedural principles governing interim measures.
Translatio Iudicii
The Reform also intervened in regulating the translatio iudicii, namely the resubmission of a claim from an incompetent judge to a competent arbitrator, or vice versa, while preserving all procedural effects as if the claim had originally been filed before the correct forum, provided that resubmission occurs within 90 days. In 2013, long before the Reform, the Italian Constitutional Court had declared part of Art. 819-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure, which regulates the relationship between courts and arbitral tribunals, unconstitutional insofar as it prevented claims from retaining their procedural effects when resubmitted before the competent judge or arbitrator. Following that ruling, courts applied the principle in practice, but it was only with the Reform that it was expressly codified. Consistently with this approach, the Tribunal of Rome (Decision No. 4161 dated 6 March 2024), inter alia, ordered that a claim be resubmitted before the competent arbitral tribunal as established by the arbitration agreement between the parties in that case, determining that the resubmission would preserve all procedural effects. Similarly, this year, in reviewing a decision from 2022 (i.e., prior to the entry into force of the Reform), the Italian Court of Cassation (Decision No. 24391 dated 2 September 2025) confirmed that following the 2013 ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court, the claimant could resume the proceedings before the competent forum with full preservation of procedural effects.
Increase in Reliance on Arbitration
Italy has become an increasingly attractive seat for arbitration following the implementation of the Reform, gaining traction from domestic and cross-border parties, especially in light of the possibility for the parties at dispute to choose a governing law other than Italian law on the merits. Prior to the Reform, parties opting to arbitrate in Italy were bound to the application of Italian law to the merits of the dispute, thus limiting access to arbitration in Italy. Typically, parties opting to arbitrate in Italy predominantly rely on the Milan Chamber of Arbitration to administrate their dispute and on the CAM Arbitration Rules. Data from the 2025 CAM Annual Report record that the institution registered 135 requests for arbitration in 2024, gaining traction from disputes in new sectors such as franchising and real estate. Notably, recourse to expedited arbitration proceedings increased by 57%, and, for the first time in CAM’s history, emergency arbitral proceedings were relied upon. While this year’s statistical data on arbitration is still being defined, these promising numbers support the increase and continuous reliance in resolving dispute through arbitration proceedings in Italy.
Emerging Trends in Italy and their Effects on Arbitration
Third-Party Funding
Third-Party Funding (“TPF”) in litigation and arbitration has been increasingly used in recent years, especially with respect to large and complex dispute requiring financing. The TPF sector is mostly unregulated worldwide, including in Italy, where there are no specific legal provisions governing TPF, or requiring parties at dispute to disclose any financial agreements with third-party funders. Against this backdrop, and in line with international arbitral institutions’ standards, Article 43 of the CAM Arbitration Rules includes an express provision for the disclosure of TPF, including the identity of the funder. Therefore, when arbitrating under the CAM Arbitration Rules, it is mandatory upon the parties to disclose any funding of the dispute. In the European Commission’s report, “Mapping Third Party Litigation Funding in the European Union”, Italy appears in the early development stages of adopting TPF, with strong potential for growth despite the regulatory uncertainties that have slowed down the market development. Nevertheless, the existence of TPF mechanisms to finance disputes has been recognized by the Italian Court of Cassation (Decision No. 4543 dated 20 February 2024), and differentiated from the broader regulatory framework for the banking industry, confirming the trend that resorting to TPF is becoming more popular.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
The use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in judicial activities, including arbitration, has been one of the hot topics within the international community in recent years. Few institutions have published guidelines on the use of AI in arbitration, and the Reform and the CAM Arbitration Rules have not established a framework for the use of AI in arbitration, given the complexity and continuous development of AI and its applications. Nonetheless, as is often the case, judicial practice has outpaced the law, and Italian courts have already started to address matters arising from the use of AI in judicial proceedings. In 2025, several Italian courts have been addressing the improper use of AI concerning generated evidence, case law and appeal submissions, although not limited to arbitration-related proceedings. For instance, the Tribunal of Turin (Decision No. 2120 dated 16 September 2025) held, inter alia, that part of the cost imposed on the losing party was justified by its improper use of AI, having cited non-existent legal provisions and fabricated case law. A different approach was taken by the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy (Decision No. 3348 dated 21 October 2025) which, once it had ascertained the submission of fabricated case law by one of the disputing parties, referred the legal counsel of that party to the relevant Bar Association (the Milan Bar in this case) to assess the counsel’s conduct and commence disciplinary proceedings against him. In fact, the Milan Bar Association is one of the first Italian Bars to have introduced a Charter of Principles for the responsible use of AI system in the legal profession. Accordingly, such code of conduct applies to all counsel registered at the Milan Bar Association, whether before a court or arbitral tribunal.
Building on these developments, Italy is among the first EU Member States to have adopted a national law on AI in alignment with the EU AI Act. Italian Law No. 132/2025 (“AI Law”) which regulates AI deployment across multiple sectors, including judicial activity, has entered into force on 10 October 2025. Article 15 of the AI Law establishes that judges have full authority over the interpretation and application of the law, assessment of evidence, and issuance of judicial measures in cases involving the use of AI. This provision may carry particular relevance for arbitration proceedings in Italy or abroad in which the parties have chosen Italian law as the governing substantive law. This evolving framework indicates that Italy is positioning itself as a frontrunner in the regulation of AI, the practical implications of which for arbitration proceedings are yet to fully unfold.
Italy as a Forward-Looking Arbitration Hub
Taken together, the recent Reform, the growing reliance on arbitration, and the emerging trends in third-party funding and artificial intelligence signal a modernized approach in Italy’s arbitration landscape in 2025. As shown by case law in practice, the Reform has not only harmonized procedural mechanisms, such as transparency duties, interim measures, and translatio iudicii, with international best practices, but has also enhanced the predictability and efficiency of arbitration in Italy. In the same vein, Italy has emerged as a forward-looking arbitration hub with its proactive legislative and practical approaches to address market and technological developments due to the increased use of third-party funding and AI.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Galileo Pozzoli is the Milan Office Managing Partner and a member of the International Dispute Resolution Practice Group at Squire Patton Boggs. Drawing on his energy expertise, he has represented states and state-owned entities in arbitrations under International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(“UNCITRAL”), International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) and London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) arbitration rules arising out of, inter alia, production sharing, joint operating agreements, concession agreements, licences and joint ventures. Galileo’s breadth of energy experience encompasses the structuring and negotiation of cross-border energy transactions, including negotiating and drafting production sharing agreements, joint operating agreements, service contracts, and contracts for the transportation and distribution of natural gas and oil. Galileo has significant experience in the real estate sector, advising on a wide range of real estate matters.
Letizia Ceccarelli is an Italian-qualified Senior Associate in the International Dispute Resolution Practice at Squire Patton Boggs based in Milan and Geneva offices. She has experience in investor-state arbitrations under the ICSID, LCIA, and UNCITRAL Rules. She has also acted for private companies in international commercial arbitral proceedings conducted under the rules of the LCIA and the Milan Chamber of Arbitration (CAM Milan). Her cases have involved a wide range of sectors, including oil and gas, mining, construction and infrastructure, aerospace, and telecommunications. Letizia has also assisted both Italian and international companies in commercial litigations before the Italian courts, with a particular focus on contract and bankruptcy disputes.
Hoda Ghassabian is a Trainee Lawyer in the International Dispute Resolution Practice Group at Squire Patton Boggs based in Milan, Italy. She is regularly involved in commercial and investor-state arbitrations, with experience with arbitrations conducted under the ICSID, LCIA, UNCITRAL, and ICC rules. Hoda’s practice focuses on disputes related to international investment and commercial arbitration, particularly in the oil and gas, energy, natural resources, and telecommunications sectors. She also has experience in public international law, including matters related to climate change and its impacts on human rights before the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
