Italian prosecutors opened preliminary checks on October 8, 2026, into an Islamic arbitration chamber in Padova, following a complaint about its proposed use of Sharia to settle civil and commercial disputes.
The file opened without named suspects or a specified criminal offense. Prosecutor Angelantonio Racanelli announced the checks after lawyer Francesco Minutillo of Futuro Nazionale submitted a complaint. The announcement did not establish that the chamber had acted unlawfully.
Founded by lawyer Omar Vanin, the Camera Arbitrale Islamica Italiana offers a service he describes as private arbitration within Italy's existing legal framework. Critics question whether its religious rules could create a parallel justice system. Opposition has also come from a Muslim organization that says the initiative was launched without consulting the communities it represents.
What the Chamber's Rules Actually Say
The chamber's statutes describe a nonprofit association based in Padova that promotes arbitration within Italy's Muslim community. Its published regulations explain how that religious purpose would enter the decision making process.
For disputes decided according to law, the rules direct arbitrators to apply Islamic legal principles. Italian law would cover questions those principles do not address. Where both parties share citizenship of a country incorporating Islamic law, the regulations refer to that country's interpretation.
Participation requires an agreement. Parties can accept the chamber's rules through an existing arbitration clause or after one side proposes referring a dispute to it.
The arbitration regulations also preserve mandatory procedural requirements and guarantee equal treatment and an opportunity for both sides to present their arguments. Those safeguards sit alongside the provisions giving Islamic law a central role in deciding the dispute.
Vanin Says Italian Law Remains Binding
Vanin has rejected descriptions of the chamber as a separate court system.
In a statement published by local broadcaster Telenuovo, he said the organization uses arbitration, an established mechanism under Italian law, to resolve commercial and property disputes.
Its intended clients include businesses and individuals who want their dealings to reflect Islamic principles, such as restrictions on interest and fairness in transactions. Vanin said that religious framework must operate within Italian law.
He also drew a boundary around the chamber's work. Speaking to ANSA on October 8, he said family status matters were outside its remit and its plans.
At that point, the chamber had no pending proceedings and had issued no arbitration awards, Vanin said. Some commercial agreements nevertheless already contained clauses referring future disputes to the organization.
UCOII Says Its Communities Gave No Mandate
The Union of Islamic Communities of Italy, known as UCOII, rejected the initiative in an October 8 statement.
It said none of the associations, Islamic centers or mosques it represents had promoted, supported or recognized the chamber. They had not been consulted, either.
UCOII described the project as an independent initiative whose promoters had no mandate from those communities. It urged Muslims to rely on Italy's established justice system and said obeying the country's laws was consistent with their faith.
The statement undermined any suggestion that the chamber had the backing of UCOII's network. It did not claim to establish the views of every Muslim in Italy.
Private Agreement Does Not Remove Legal Limits
Italian law permits arbitration, but it limits which disputes private arbitrators can decide.
Article 806 of the Code of Civil Procedure excludes disputes involving rights that people cannot freely dispose of through private agreement. Agreement between the parties therefore does not, by itself, make every matter eligible for arbitration.
That boundary is central to the political objections. Brothers of Italy senator Susanna Donatella Campione called for scrutiny of the chamber's rules, warning that arbitration must not become a way to bypass mandatory legal protections.
The dispute subsequently reached the Senate. On October 15, Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi said any parallel system of civil or criminal justice would conflict with Italy's constitutional principles and state sovereignty, Rai Parlamento reported.
