On 14 April 2025, the Court of Turin section specialised in business law declared all of the class and representative compensatory actions filed against Groupe PSA, Stellantis and Automobiles Citroën SA admissible.^[1] The court order clarifies some procedural issues arising from joining collective actions filed under the two Italian regimes under a single procedural framework.

Parallel application of two regimes

Part I describes the differences between the Italian class actions and representative actions relevant to the admissibility phase.

The first such profile concerns what regime applies when both actions are decided within the same proceeding. The court agrees with the plaintiffs that claims joined on account of their (objective and partial subjective) connection[2] retain their autonomy, although the judgment will formally be one. Thus, not only do the claims filed after the first need not be collective actions of the same type, but the existence of some specific features relating to the representative action as opposed to the class action does not require their separation, since the joinder determines the rules of the proceeding and not the discipline applicable to the individual actions.

This is especially relevant concerning the possibility of seeking injunctive and redress measures with a single representative action, which, by contrast, is expressly forbidden in class actions.[3] In the case at issue, some of the representative actions filed by consumer organisations concern both injunctive and compensatory claims. Since the discipline of the first action filed by Mr Regina – a class action – does not apply to all the subsequent ones, the defendants’ request to deal with the injunctive claims in a separate proceeding is rejected.

Second, the court dispels any doubt that the representative action regime applies to all actions filed after its entry into force, as is normally the case for procedural rules.

Finally, the judges adopted a claimant-friendly interpretation of Article 140ter(2) Cons. Code, declaring the class actions brought by consumer associations Codacons/Adusbef/AUSR admissible because they represent non-consumers, too. The judges restated that qualified entities retain their standing for bringing class actions “except for matters falling under the scope of representative actions”.

Two are the possible interpretations. Pursuant to a stricter one, the class action could succeed in the merits only for non-consumers, or for consumers limited to violations of provisions other than those listed under the scope of representative actions. While adherent to the text of the law, this solution prevents a global approach to collective harm and fosters litigation on whether claims are “in” or “out” of scope. A more permissive interpretation sees this as an approach favourable to the unity of the action, regardless of whether class members qualify as consumers or the alleged violation concerns only specific consumer law provisions. On the one hand, this would be consistent with the objective of collective redress. On the other, consumers might face less favourable treatment under the class action regime than the representative action one. However, given the judges’ wide discretionary margins, risks of discrimination among consumers could be mitigated in practice.

Definition of the class

The order defines class members as all owners of Citroën C3 and DS3 produced between 2009 and 2019, subject to the recall campaign.

In reviewing whether the admissibility criteria were met, the court adopts a decision in line with previous case law.[4] Particularly, the court states that class members’ rights are homogeneous – and thus suitable for a standardised solution – when they are based on the same factual and legal grounds. Conversely, it is irrelevant that the exact amount to which each class member is entitled is different as long as it is determinable via (sub)criteria common to the class. The judges deem sufficient that the claims for monetary damages are homogeneous, even though the six collective actions present some differences concerning non-monetary damages and other remedies.

What’s next?

The publication of the court order marks the conclusion of the admissibility phase and the beginning of the first opt-in period.

Italian collective actions allow class members to opt in before or after the judgment on the merits. Class members who opt in early are bound by a potentially negative outcome, but the limitation period applicable to their rights is interrupted. However, such an incentive is milder for consumers concerned by a representative action, which interrupts the limitation period in their respect.[5] ‘Late’ opt-in is thus a more appealing option. However, the plaintiffs have already started a communication campaign to reach as many potential class members as possible.

The second phase will address the merits of the case, establish the defendant’s liability. Only in the third phase will the individual rights of all class members be ascertained and eventually satisfied through collective enforcement.

Conclusion

The court’s argumentation improves legal certainty in the context of two coexisting and partially overlapping collective action regimes. It restates that the joinder of collective claims is no exception to the general rules of civil procedure, for claims are decided under their respective rules. This might encourage Italian judges to assume a more managerial role, e.g. concerning sub-classes – a responsibility that is not new to them. The specialised business divisions appear to be the most appropriate setting for such a task.

The upcoming judgment will also clarify whether consumer associations can legitimately bring class actions whose scope partially overlaps with representative actions. This decision could shape the future of collective actions, as it would impact their efficiency, costs, as well as the defendants’ strategy.

It will also provide an exemplary case of non-monetary damages in collective proceedings. Indeed, the admissibility order does not delve into whether the non-monetary damages sought are prima facie suitable for collective enforcement.

The first hearing of the Airbag case is set for 21 November 2025.

Sofia Caruso[6]

[1] Court of Turin (ord.) 14 April 2025, Regina e al. c. Groupe PSA/Stellantis/Automobiles Citroen

[2] Art. 274 c.c.p.

[3] Art. 840sexiesdecies(10) c.c.p.

[4] Cfr. Court of Venice (ord.) 13 July 2023, Volksbank; Court of Rome (ord.) 8 November 2023, Di Martino e al. c. Italia Loyalty

[5] Art. 140duodecies Cons. Code.

[6] PhD candidate at KU Leuven and Leiden University, holder of FWO scholarship.