- In January 2026, the Milan Court awarded compensation equal to 8% of the purchase price of trucks to companies assisted by Cna Fita, amounting to an average of around €13,000 per vehicle. This is a first-instance judgment, but it represents the first favourable outcome in Milan for the group.
- The case dates back to 2017, when around 3,000 companies joined the action promoted by Cna Fita together with Studio Scoccini & Associati and Ali as litigation funder. The quantification of damages was supported by a court-appointed technical expert assessment, based on economic analysis and extensive documentation.
- The wider European litigation remains far more extensive. Other Italian associations have joined the collective action launched in Amsterdam with Omni Bridgeway, while in Germany hundreds of proceedings are under way. In the background is the European Commission’s 2016 decision sanctioning the cartel that operated between 1997 and 2011.
The long and complex dispute over compensation that European hauliers may seek from industrial vehicle manufacturers convicted by the EU competition authority of operating a price cartel has been enriched by a new ruling in Italy in favour of purchasers. In January 2026, the Milan Court issued a first-instance civil judgment recognising compensation equal to 8% of the purchase price of trucks for haulage companies assisted by Cna Fita, with an average value indicated at around €13,000 per vehicle, including interest. The ruling covers medium and heavy vehicles with a gross vehicle weight above 6 tonnes, purchased or registered between 1997 and 2011, including special vehicles and acquisitions via leasing, long-term rental and second-hand purchases, excluding only vehicles for military use. The decision is subject to appeal and is therefore not final, but it marks a concrete step in a dispute that began in 2017 and was built on a comprehensive documentary record.
The claimants in this case are owner-drivers and small and medium-sized haulage companies, largely operating small fleets, which through Cna Fita decided to take collective action against the manufacturers sanctioned by the European Commission. The case was handled by Studio Legale Scoccini & Associati and supported by Ali Antitrust Litigation Investment, which acted as litigation funder by advancing legal and technical costs in return for a share of any compensation awarded, enabling companies with limited financial capacity to pursue a process that, due to its duration and complexity, would be difficult to undertake individually.
A central element of the dispute is the quantification of damage, which in the Milan case was based on an economic analysis developed as part of the court-appointed expert assessment ordered by the court. Unlike other decisions that have awarded damages on an equitable basis using a standard percentage, this case sought to reconstruct a “counterfactual” price, that is, the price that would have emerged in the absence of the restrictive agreement, by comparing periods and markets and taking into account the difference between list prices and prices actually paid. In the European context, the 8% figure sits above the threshold often indicated as the average for equitable awards, but below some higher precedents, such as a 2021 ruling by the Naples Court that awarded 15% in an Italian case based on equitable assessment, and below some Spanish judgments that have pushed the percentage higher in individual disputes.
The litigation began in 2017 with an initial claim indicated at €250 million, which has increased over time due to interest and revaluation. Timing is closely linked to the issue of limitation periods, which for years represented one of the main lines of defence used by manufacturers. The judges held that the limitation period should run from the publication of the European Commission’s decision in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 April 2017, rather than from the opening of the investigations in 2011. This approach was subsequently confirmed on appeal and reinforced by a further ruling by the Italian Supreme Court in 2025, which has strengthened the framework for actions in Italy.
The background lies in the European Commission’s decision of 19 July 2016, which sanctioned Daimler, Daf, Volvo/Renault, Iveco and Man for participating in a cartel operating from 1997 to 2011, involving coordination of gross list prices and alignment on the timing of the introduction of emission-reduction technologies, as well as the exchange of sensitive commercial information. Man obtained immunity from fines for its cooperation under the leniency programme, while Scania, which did not take part in the settlement procedure, was sanctioned separately in 2017 and saw its liability definitively confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 1 February 2024, a development that has renewed attention within the sector on the time limits for new compensation initiatives.
From this framework emerges the point of greatest operational interest for the haulage sector: the value of the infringement for a fleet and how it translates into potential compensation. The average of €13,000 per truck cited in Cna communications, read alongside the 8% recognised in Milan, provides an immediate order of magnitude for companies with fleets purchased during the 1997–2011 period. Even without turning these figures into standardised simulations, the potential impact grows rapidly with fleet size and becomes a matter of financial management as well as legal strategy, particularly given that many companies acquired vehicles through leasing or long-term rental contracts, arrangements that require careful documentary reconstruction of the price actually paid and the contractual terms.
The Italian litigation landscape remains highly fragmented. A significant number of haulage associations chose, in the years following the European decision, to join a collective action launched in the Netherlands before the Amsterdam Court, managed by the Stichting Trucks Cartel Compensation foundation and supported by litigation funder Omni Bridgeway. This model was presented to companies as involving no upfront costs and no direct economic risk. The Dutch route has involved associations such as Anita, Assotir, Confartigianato Trasporti, Fai, Fiap, Unitai and others, with the aim of channelling a broad and coordinated action into a single forum, as an alternative to the path followed by Cna Fita in Milan.
Alongside these two channels, a further strand has developed involving operators proposing different models for managing compensation claims. Libra Claims operates with a more financial approach based on the purchase of claims and securitisation transactions, highlighting how the truck cartel litigation has also become a market in its own right, in addition to being a matter of legal protection. For hauliers, the presence of different models implies differences in timing of payment, percentages retained by the funder, management of documentary evidence and the level of control over proceedings, all factors that affect the final net value and the company’s financial planning.
At European level, Germany remains the main concentration point for proceedings, with the Munich Regional Court at the centre of a volume of cases running into the hundreds. The mass hearing launched in November 2025, involving a large number of lawyers and experts, is expected to influence overall orientation, particularly given the reliance on counterfactual economic analysis. At the same time, other countries have seen favourable decisions for claimants, with Spain delivering higher percentages in some cases, and France seeing its first private decision in 2025 with per-truck amounts communicated as unit values. In the United Kingdom, by contrast, there has been a more frequent recourse to out-of-court settlements by large purchasers, consistent with a preference for certainty and speed rather than the establishment of precedents.
For Italian haulage companies, the main effect of the Milan ruling is twofold. On the one hand, it offers a numerical and methodological reference that may influence negotiation strategies, as an 8% award based on technical expert evidence makes it harder to reduce the issue to a minimal lump-sum settlement, especially if other courts give weight to similar approaches. On the other hand, it confirms that the process remains lengthy: as a first-instance decision, the risk of appeal is inherent, and managing the financial implications of waiting becomes an integral part of the decision whether to join compensation initiatives, also in light of litigation funding models that can reduce upfront costs but lower the share ultimately received.
There is also a timing element that, in available analyses, extends the window for action. The definitive decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Scania on 1 February 2024 is cited as a factor that may affect limitation periods for new actions until 2029, helping to explain why, years after the 1997–2011 cartel, litigation continues to expand. In this context, Italy’s fragmentation across multiple forums and models remains a given: it increases options for companies, but reduces the sector’s ability to present a unified negotiating lever vis-à-vis manufacturers, particularly as settlements become a concrete alternative alongside court judgments.
Michele Latorre
