Rebooting Italian Class Actions

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard, https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​info/​sites/​info/​files/​justice_​scoreboard_​2019_​en.​pdf.

See, in particular, Afferni (2016), p. 99.

Commentaries written in English on the new regulation of group actions are not yet available. For those who are brave enough to approach the flowery language of Italian scholars, here are some suggestions: Amadei (2019), p. 1049; Carratta (2019), p. 2297; Consolo (2019a), p. 737.

See Silvestri (2014), pp. 197–208. Excerpts of court rulings concerning class actions for damages can be read (in Italian) in Brazzini, Muià (2019), pp. 52–62.

See Pardolesi (2019), p. 305.

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.

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.

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.

On the problems related to the interpretation of the expression ‘homogenous individual rights’, see Donzelli (2019), p. 11.

See, in particular, Ponzanelli (2019), p. 306.

These new winds of change in the field of civil procedure have not been well received by the legal community: see Costantino (2019), Carratta (2020).

See De Santis (2019), p. 90.

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).’

See, for instance, Consolo (2019b).

See n. 10 above.

Professor Kaplan’s quote is mentioned in Hensler et al. (2000), p. 49.