Four-Year Insight from the Milan Chamber of Arbitration (2020–2023)
THE AUTHOR:
Benedetta Coppo, Case Manager at CAM Milan Chamber of Arbitration
Legal Landscape
In May 2024, the CAM Milan Chamber of Arbitration (“CAM”) unveiled comprehensive data regarding dissenting opinions in its administered proceedings. This presentation—delivered at the “Arbitration in Germany and Italy—Recent Developments” conference in Berlin, organized by the Bilateral Italian German Arbitration Group and the Italien Zentrum of Freie Universität Berlin—occurred against the backdrop of Italy’s 2023 arbitration reform, which successfully updated Italian standards in line with international practices. Current judicial trends in Italy further support this evolution, as major Courts of Appeal increasingly adopt an “arbitration-friendly” stance, characterized by a restrictive interpretation of the grounds for challenging awards. Recent empirical studies confirm this trend: analyses of Italian Courts of Appeal decisions show that only 4% of arbitral awards were successfully challenged between 2010-2014 (See, L. Barison, Un’indagine statistica sull’impugnazione del lodo arbitrale nazionale [A statistical survey on the challenge of domestic arbitral awards], “Rivista dell’Arbitrato” 2 (2015), 403-409), and just 11.5% were set aside between 2012-2018 (See, M. Cicogna and M. Seregni, An empirical study on setting aside proceedings in Italy, 2022).
A Theoretical Debate: Quality vs. Stability
As neither the Italian Code of Civil Procedure nor the CAM Arbitration Rules 2023 contain specific provisions regarding dissenting opinions, their benefits and drawbacks are debated, and the Milan Chamber’s data aims to shed further light on this discussion. While both frameworks permit majority awards (See, Art. 823, Italian Code of Civil Procedure; Art. 33.1, CAM Arbitration Rules 2023), they focus primarily on procedural requirements—such as confirming deliberation with all arbitrators’ participation and explaining missing signatures—rather than addressing the substantive role or content of dissenting opinions. Italian case law has clarified that arbitrators in the majority need only acknowledge that the minority was unwilling to sign, without any obligation to justify rejecting the dissenting view (See, Court of Appeal of Naples, 9 May 2017).
Those in favor of dissenting opinions argue that expressing dissent allows for a deeper exploration of minority views and provides a more transparent window into the tribunal’s deliberative process. This ultimately contributes to a more thorough comprehension of the award’s reasoning and, arguably, enhances its quality. On the other hand, critics view the practice as a potential “veiled act of partiality” toward the appointing party. They suggest it may weaken the stability of the decision by providing a roadmap for challenges or opposition to enforcement. Therefore, given the potential for dissenting opinions to echo partiality, it is crucial to assess the scope of this phenomenon to boost arbitration’s reputation as a dependable and efficient dispute resolution mechanism.
Data Analysis (2020–2023)
General Picture
Over the four-year period, from 2020 to 2023, CAM received 512 arbitration requests. Of these, 18% involved non-Italian parties, classifying them as international cases. Roughly half of the cases were assigned to three-arbitrator panels, with a total of 758 arbitrators appointed. The average case duration was 13 months, and the average value was € 4.3 million. Within the same timeframe, 244 cases concluded without a decision, while 226 awards were issued. The analyzed awards do not fully align with the arbitration requests filed in the same years, as some may pertain to cases initiated earlier.
Focus on 226 awards (2020–2023)
Examining the 226 rendered awards, 26% were international cases (a 6% increase compared to general data). The average duration for these proceedings was 15.9 months (3.9 months longer than general data), and the average value remained € 4.3 million (consistent with general data). Out of the 226 awards, 133 were issued by a sole arbitrator, and 93 by a three-arbitrator panel.
Focusing on these 93 panel-rendered awards, 33% were international cases (a 15% increase over general data). Their average duration was 21.3 months (7.3 months longer than the general data), and the average value remained consistent. Among these 93 awards, 26 were rendered by the majority. All 26 majority awards were signed by every arbitrator. Within these 26 majority awards, 17 included at least one dissenting opinion (out of the 17 cases, there were 18 dissenting opinions), while 9 had none.
Regarding the composition of the arbitral panels for the 93 awards, in almost all these cases, each party nominated an arbitrator, and the co-arbitrators jointly appointed the chair of the tribunal.
Considering the 26 majority decisions, approximately 44.4% of those without any dissent and 41.2% of those with a dissenting opinion were international cases (roughly 23% higher than the general data). The average duration for these cases was 22.5 months (9.5 months longer than the general data). The Average value was € 6.5 million for the 9 cases without a dissenting opinion and € 15.5 million for the 17 cases that included a dissenting opinion (an increase of € 11 million compared to general data).
These figures suggest that dissenting opinions are prevalent in international arbitration. In complex cases, indeed, dissenting opinions can provide valuable insights, aiding in the understanding of the final decision and its reasoning. In this scenario, a majority decision is more likely to be accepted, ideally leading to voluntary compliance or discouraging frivolous challenges. These points were underscored at CAM 2021 XXII Annual Conference “Reasoning and dissenting in arbitration: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly”. A survey conducted at the conference’s conclusion revealed that 67% of participants (over 120 professionals from 30 different countries, mostly civil law ones, where the importance of the reasoning is a recognized value) believed dissenting opinions could enhance an award’s quality and stability. Still, among those who opposed dissenting opinions, the primary concerns revolved around two factors: first, the potential negative impact on arbitration timelines, as dissenting opinions could cause delays in the deliberation process and consequently incur additional costs; secondly, the risk that a dissenting opinion might introduce any ground for challenging the award, merely to appease the party that appointed the dissenting arbitrator.
A Profile of the Dissenting Arbitrator
Returning to the data from the 17 cases with dissenting opinions, in all but one instance, the dissent was expressed by the arbitrator nominated by the losing party. The author’s reading found that these dissents were drafted in neutral, non-hostile terms, aiming to articulate the arbitrator’s legal reasoning by offering alternative interpretations or solutions without breaching the confidentiality of deliberations.
These 17 cases also provided insights into the profile of the arbitrators who expressed dissent.
In all but one case, the dissenting arbitrator was male. The average age of dissenting arbitrators was 64 years. Furthermore, in every case, the dissenting arbitrator was a university professor.
Without intending to perpetuate a stereotype, the profile of the dissenting arbitrator might be linked to gender dynamics at the time these appointments were made. Indeed, the examined awards stem from cases initiated even before 2020, while CAM statistical data (available on CAM’s website) indicate that only in the past two years have parties increased nominating women as arbitrators. The academic background can be attributed to the high complexity of disputes referred to three-arbitrator panels, a complexity often tied to the substantial value and international nature of the disputes.
Conclusion
CAM’s data demonstrate that dissenting opinions appear in a limited number of cases (17 out of 226). Although in all but one instance the dissent was expressed by the arbitrator appointed by the losing party, the infrequent occurrence of dissenting opinions, coupled with the complexity of the disputes in which they arise, prevents them from being a definitive indicator of arbitrator partiality.
Future changes in appointment criteria may influence the profile of arbitrators and affect this phenomenon, which certainly warrants ongoing review.
Summary of Key Data (2020-2023)
| Category | International Cases (%) | Average Duration | Average Value |
| 512 arbitration requests | 18% | 13 months | €4.3 million |
| 226 awards rendered | 26% | 15.9 months | €4.3 million |
| 93 awards by a panel of three | 33% | 21.3 months | €4.3 million |
| 26 majority awards | 44.4% | 22.5 months | €6.5 million |
| 17 awards with dissenting opinions | 41.2% | 22.5 months | €15.5 million |
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Benedetta Coppo has been working for CAM Milan Chamber of Arbitration since 2001. After being in charge of the arbitration team until 2013, from 2014 she is in charge of the CAM branch in Rome.
The Milan Chamber of Arbitration (“CAM“) is one of Europe’s leading arbitration institutions, offering efficient and innovative dispute resolution services. Established by the Milan Chamber of Commerce, CAM provides a full range of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) solutions, including arbitration, mediation, and dispute boards, ensuring effective resolution of commercial disputes at both national and international levels.
With a strong reputation for excellence, CAM administers cases under its Arbitration Rules, designed to promote efficiency, flexibility, and transparency. The institution also supports businesses and practitioners through specialized training, thought leadership, and publications on arbitration and ADR.
CAM is also actively engaged in the organization of training events, conferences, and workshops aimed at fostering dialogue and knowledge-sharing among arbitration professionals, academics, and businesses.
Committed to innovation, CAM integrates digital tools for case management, including online mediation and remote hearings, making arbitration more accessible and adaptable to modern business needs.
*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.
