Abstract
On April 12, 2019, the Italian Parliament passed a statute providing for a new regulation of collective redress. For the first time in the relatively short life of Italian group actions, both actions for compensatory relief (i.e. damages or restitution) and actions for injunctive relief are governed together and moved from the Consumer Code to the Code of Civil Procedure. This reflects a new vision of collective redress, namely a wider scope of application: no more references to consumers and users, but standing granted generically to bearers of ‘homogenous individual rights’, whether or not they are consumers or users. Furthermore, the new perimeter of class actions encompasses any claims arising out of both contract liability and tort liability, which signals another significant change aimed at designing class actions as general remedies. Yet, nothing has changed as far as the procedure by which class members can join the action is concerned: the opt-in option has been preserved even though the timeframe for opting in has been extended. In spite of a few interesting features, the new rules sketch a procedure that is still cumbersome and excessively technical. It should be interesting to see whether this attempt at reinvigorating group actions will be successful.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See statute no. 31 of April 12, 2019, Gazzetta Ufficiale (Official Journal of the Italian Republic) no. 92 of April 18, 2019.
- 2.
The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/justice_scoreboard_2019_en.pdf.
- 3.
See, in particular, Afferni (2016), p. 99.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
The relevant rules of the Consumer Code were Arts. 139 and 140 (governing the collective actions for injunctive relief) and Art. 140-bis (governing the class action for damages). These rules are included in a special section of the Code devoted to access to justice for consumers and their associations. An extensive set of rules concerns the so-called consumer ADR following the implementation of Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes.
- 7.
See Pardolesi (2019), p. 305.
- 8.
The addition of a new Title V-bis on collective procedures appears also in the regulations for the implementation of the Code: they represent an annex to the Code whose purpose is to govern the practical aspects that may result from the enforcement of the Code’s articles.
- 9.
This is the definition of Book Four of the Code given by a prominent Italian scholar, the late Virgilio Andrioli: see Andrioli (1979), p. 52.
- 10.
Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law (2013/396/EU), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013H0396&from=EN.
- 11.
Ibid., Art. 3 (b): a ‘mass harm situation’ occurs when ‘two or more natural or legal persons claim to have suffered harm causing damage resulting from the same illegal activity of one or more natural or legal persons’.
- 12.
The Recommendation is one of the documents included in a package of measures aimed at laying down the ‘minimum standards’ that Member States hopefully should apply in the domestic regulation of collective redress. The ‘minimum standards’ are principles common to both injunctive and compensatory collective actions, and they are supplemented by more principles applicable either to the former actions or to the latter. On the Recommendation, see, for instance, Silvestri (2016), pp. 203–214; Voet (2014), p. 97. In spite of the Recommendation, the findings of a relatively recent study commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs show that the existing types of domestic collective redress are quite different among Member States, and therefore there are arguments to support a plea for a European legislative instrument aimed at harmonizing national legislations. That said, in light of the accentuated divergences in the Member States’ approaches to collective redress, ‘a horizontal compensatory collective redress mechanism with detailed procedural rules is desirable but unrealistic’: see Directorate General for Internal Policies—Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs—Legal Affairs, ‘Collective Redress in the Member States of the European Union’, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/608829/IPOL_STU(2018)608829_EN.pdf.
- 13.
On the problems related to the interpretation of the expression ‘homogenous individual rights’, see Donzelli (2019), p. 11.
- 14.
See, in particular, Ponzanelli (2019), p. 306.
- 15.
- 16.
See De Santis (2019), p. 90.
- 17.
Simply put, the attorney-client privilege can be defined as a shield protecting the communications between an attorney and his client when the communications are made in confidence for the purpose of providing legal assistance for the client: see American Law Institute (2000), para 68. As far as the work-product doctrine, one may cite Rule 26 (b)(3) of the American Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, according to which, ‘Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).’
- 18.
See, for instance, Consolo (2019b).
- 19.
See n. 10 above.
- 20.
Professor Kaplan’s quote is mentioned in Hensler et al. (2000), p. 49.
References
Afferni G (2016) ‘Opt-in’ class actions in Italy: why are they failing? J Eur Tort Law 7:82–100
Amadei D (2019) Nuova azione di classe e procedimenti collettivi nel codice di procedura civile. In: Cian G et al (eds) Le nuove leggi civili commentate, Anno XLII, n. 5. Wolters Kluwer, Milan, pp 1049–1090
American Law Institute (2000) Restatement (third) of the law governing lawyers. ALI, Philadelphia
Andrioli V (1979) Diritto processuale civile. Jovene, Naples
Brazzini S, Muià PP (2019) La nuova class action alla luce della legge 12 aprile 2019, n. 31. G Giappichelli Editore, Turin
Carratta A (2019) La class action riformata. Giurisprudenza italiana, n. 10. UTET, Milan, pp 2297–2334
Carratta A (2020) Sull’ennesima ed inutile riforma del processo civile. http://www.treccani.it/magazine/diritto/approfondimenti/diritto_processuale_civile_e_delle_procedure_concorsuali/Sull_ennesima_ed_inutile_riforma_del_processo-civile.html. Accessed 13 Feb 2020
Consolo C (2019a) La terza edizione della azione di classe è legge ed entra nel c.p.c. Uno sguardo d’insieme ad una amplissima disciplina. Il corriere giuridico, n. 6. Ipsoa, Milan, pp 737–743
Consolo C (2019b) La terza generazione di azione di classe all’italiana fra giuste articolate novità e qualche aporia tecnica. http://www.dirittobancario.it/editoriali/claudio-consolo/la-terza-generazione-di-azione-di-classe-all-italiana-fra-giuste-articolate-novita-e-qualche-aporia. Accessed 13 Feb 2020
Costantino G (2019) Sulle proposte di riforma del processo civile di cognizione: contro la pubblicità ingannevole. http://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/sulle-proposte-di-riforma-del-processo-civile-di-cognizione-contro-la-pubblicita-ingannevole_11-12-2019.php. Accessed 13 Feb 2020
De Santis AD (2019) Il procedimento. In: Sassani B (ed) Class Action – Commento sistematico alla legge 12 aprile 2019, n. 31. Pacini Giuridica, Pisa, p 90
Donzelli R (2019) L’ambito di applicazione e la legittimazione ad agire. In: Sassani B (ed) Class Action – Commento sistematico alla legge 12 aprile 2019, n. 31. Pacini Giuridica, Pisa, pp 1–41
Hensler DR et al (2000) Class action dilemmas. Pursuing public goals for private gain. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica
Pardolesi R (2019) La classe in azione. Finalmente. Danno e responsabilità. Ipsoa, Milan, pp 301–305
Ponzanelli G (2019) La nuova class action. Danno e responsabilità. Ipsoa, Milan, pp 306–308
Silvestri E (2014) Class actions in Italy: great expectations, big disappointment. In: Harsági V, Van Rhee CH (eds) Multi-party redress mechanism in Europe: squeaking mice? Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 197–208
Silvestri E (2016) Group actions à la mode Européenne: a kinder, gentler class action for Europe? In: Picker CR, Seidman GI (eds) The dynamism of civil procedure – global trends and developments. Springer, Berlin, pp 203–214
Voet S (2014) European collective redress: a status of quaestionis. Int J Procedural Law 4:97–127
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Silvestri, E. (2021). Rebooting Italian Class Actions. In: Uzelac, A., Voet, S. (eds) Class Actions in Europe. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 89. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73036-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73036-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-73035-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-73036-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)