Libertà delle parti e clausole patologiche nell'arbitrato internazionale.

Abstract

Mientras los laudos arbitrales tienden a interpretar cláusulas dudosas u oscuras en favor de su eficacia, a veces con ingeniosos, aunque criticables argumentos, los jueces nacionales, a excepción de Francia, tienen una opinión contraria; todavía celosos de su monopolio de la justicia, en caso de dudas sobre la voluntad real de las partes de sustraerse a la jurisdicción ordinaria, niegan la validez de la cláusula arbitral. Por esta razón la redacción clara y esmerada de una cláusula arbitral es una de las primeras tareas para abogados y consultores que no deberían olvidar que redactar una cláusula patológica equivale a “fueling the arguments of the party attempting to avoid arbitration and making the overall process more time–consuming and expensive”. La doctrina debate si los árbitros enfrentados a cláusulas arbitrales patológicas deben, para descubrir la verdadera intención de las partes, atender a interpretaciones restrictivas o al favor validitatis. Sea el árbitro o el juez el intérprete de estas cláusulas, estará obligado a un análisis en dos fases sucesivas. Primero, averiguar si las partes han querido el arbitraje renunciando a la jurisdicción del juez ordinario. Si esta respuesta es afirmativa, en segundo lugar debe interpretar la cláusula siguiendo los criterios interpretativos del propio contrato ya que “Contract terms shall be interpreted so as to give effect to all the terms rather than to deprive some of them of effect”.

While arbitral tribunals often interpret dubious arbitration clauses in favour of their validity resorting to ingenious, though many times censurable arguments, national judges, with French exception, have the contrary view. Still jealous of their justice’s monopoly, when in doubt of parties will they deny the arbitral clause validity. That is why the clear and neatly written clause is one of the primary tasks for lawyers and consultants that should not forget that writing a pathologic clause amounts to fueling the arguments of the party attempting to avoid arbitration and making the overall process more time–consuming and expensive. Doctrine debates on whether arbiters facing pathologic arbitral clauses should resort to restrictive interpretations or to favour validitatis when investigating the parties intention. Be it the arbiter or the judge the interpreter of these clauses, he shall be obliged to a two phase analysis. Firstly, they should find out if the parties wanted arbitration renouncing to ordinary jurisdiction. If the answer is positive, secondly, they should interpret the clause following the interpretative criteria of the contract itself because contract terms shall be interpreted so as to give effect to all the terms rather than to deprive some of them of effect.