On 4 April 2025, the Court of Turin section specialised in business law held the final hearing on the admissibility of collective actions against Groupe PSA, Stellantis and Citroën Automobiles SAin the Airbag caseconcerning over 170,000 vehicles.[1]The case results from joining six compensatory collective actions undertaken by one individual and seven consumer associations: it is the first time the two Italian regimes for collective actions are brought together under one procedural framework.
This article, the first of a two-part series, outlines the legal background and core procedural issues raised in the case. A forthcoming Part II will explore how the court addressed these issues in the orderadopted on 14 April 2025, including the implications for collective redress mechanisms in Italy.
Alleged ‘killer’ airbags
On 17 May 2024, Stellantis announced its Italian recall campaign of the Citroën C3 and DS3 automobiles manufactured from 2009 to 2019 due to riskthatdefective Takata airbagscould cause (fatal) injury. Stellantis offered free replacement of the airbags and alternative mobility options. However, the recall campaign was affected by severe delays and was clouded by suspicions that relevant informationwas hidden from consumers, which prompted consumer associations to mobilise.
A first successful collective injunctive action[2] ascertained Group PSA’s liability for distributing dangerous products and failing to execute a timely and effective recall campaign, and ordered specific remedial measures. Non-compliancewould be punished with astreintesbetween€50 and 20,000 per day. Similar temporary injunctions have been issues following a second collectiveaction, pending before the Court of Turin.[3] The twoclaims have been filed under two different collective actions regimes.
Compensatory collective action(s)
In the meantime, six compensatory collective actions have been filed before theCourt of Turin seeking material and immaterial damages suffered as a consequence of UCPs, the distribution of dangerous products and the inadequate recall campaign. These actions are regulated either under the Code of Civil Procedure (class actions)[4] or the Consumer Code (representative actions)[5].
In November 2024, the judge ordered the joinder of the claims on account of their objective and (partial) subjective connection,aiming at more efficient management of the proceeding and more consistent legal reasoning.
Tensions in the applicable regimes
The main issues under scrutiny arise from the discrepancies between the disciplines of class actions and representative actions, already at the admissibility stage. The class action, which has a horizontal scope of application, recognises the legal standing of individual class members and representative associations. In contrast,the representative action, transposing the Representative Actions Directive (‘RAD’), can only be brought by qualified entities on behalf of consumers against traders infringing consumer law provisions.
Therefore, it is questioned whether Article 840quater c.c.p. applies to the case, stating that, when multiple collective actions are filed on the same subject and against the same defendant, they are joined to the first claim. Since class actions and representative actions have separate scopes of application, this provision was probably not intended to regulate the case when the two are brought together.
The claimants circumvent this issue, asserting that the joined actionsretain their autonomy, and each will be decided under an autonomous section of the operative part of the judgment. They will be dealt with at the same time and under the common rules of the proceeding,[6] but their respective disciplines will apply.
The defendants object that, since the first claim was a class action, the following should have also been class actions, resulting in the four representative actions being inadmissible. However, this approach would require an interpretation contra legem, because qualified entities cannot file class actionsfor matters falling under the scope of representative actions.[7]
Nevertheless, one class action was brought by consumer associations representing both consumers and non-consumers, whose interests fall outside the scope of the representative action. Similar cases show the limits of a sectoral approach to collective redress.
The same consumer associations claim that the harmful conduct took place before the discipline of the representative action entered into force (25 June 2023). However, the representative action regime applies to all actions filed after its entry into force, irrespective of the time of the conduct.[8] In fact, an exception to the tempus regitactumprinciple was made for the class action regime, restricting itsapplication solely to illicit conduct occurring after 19 May 2021.
Admissibility phase
The admissibility order will assess whether the claims are not manifestly unfounded, whetherthe individual rights of the identifiable class members are homogeneous, and whether the representative claimant or qualified entity is adequate for their role and is not in conflict of interest with the defendants. The most disputed aspect concernshomogeneity.
With some slight differences, the claimants define class(es) members as individuals who have purchased affected Citroën C3 or DS3 vehicles (2009–2019) equipped with defective airbags and subject to Stellantis’ recall or the relevant ministerial notice.
The defendants argue thatthe classes are not homogeneous, neither across the different claims, nor within each class, for the very existence of harm depends on each consumer’s need for a car and requires individual assessment, e.g. of the costs paid for replacement car rental. This would exclude vulnerable consumers who could not afford alternative transport and would be unable to prove the harm suffered.
If the actions retain their autonomy, the homogeneity of the rights should be measured with respect to each claim. The opposing parties perform such evaluation based on different criteria: the claimants focus on the common origin of the damage (“danno-evento”[9]), while the defendants focus on the consequences of the alleged harmful conduct (“danno-conseguenza”[10]).
Conclusion
The case highlights the shortcomings of the Italian implementation of the RAD that established a “dual track” of protection for consumer collective actions instead of amending the existing class action provisions. The inevitable overlap, gaps, and inconsistencies produced by a sector-by-sector approach foster a “contentieux de frontière”[11], as in the Airbag case.
Part II will look at how the Court of Turin dealt with these tensions in the order of 14 April 2025, which decided on the admissibility of the collective actions – a key to the future of collective actions in Italy.
Sofia Caruso[12]
[1]Regina/Groupe PSA +Stellantis, R.G. n. 13711/24.
[2]Court of Turin (ord.) 7 October 2024, Codacons e al. c. Groupe PSA. The defendants appealed the decision.
See also Anna D’Agostino, ‘Country reports: Italy’ (2024) Mass Claims 138-140.
[3]Court of Turin (ord.) 27 September 2024, U.Di.Con. c. Group PSA.
[4] Arts. 840bis et seq. c.c.p.
[5]Arts. 140ter et seq. Cons. code.
[6]Under the rules ofrito semplificato di cognizione (Art. 281decies c.c.p.).
[7] Art. 140ter(2) Cons. Code.It is questionable whether this provision complies with Art. 1(3) RAD.
[8] With the sole exception of the rules on limitation periods.
[9] Cfr. Court ofVenice, 12 January 2016, Altroconsumo/Vighenzi c. Volkswagen.
[10] Cfr. Court of Milan (ord.) 8 November 2013, Altroconsumo e al. c.Trenord.Pursuant to more progressive interpretation, the danno-conseguenza approach results in an undue overlap with the proof of damage, Cfr. Milan Court of Appeal (ord.) 3 March 2014, Associazione codici e al. c. Trenord.
[11]Syndicat de la magistraturein Rapport d’information sur les actions de groupe, p. 40.
[12] PhD candidate at KU Leuven and Leiden University, holder of FWO scholarship.
