In Italy legal disputes are resolved through ordinary litigation or so-called Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The ADR category includes both ‘decisional/adjudicative’ systems, in which the dispute is resolved through the decision of a third impartial authority (for example, arbitration), and ‘facilitative/consensual’ systems, which promote the resolution of disputes through the intervention of a third party that facilitates the reaching of an agreement in the form of conciliation (for example, mediation and assisted negotiation, ‘negoziazione assistita’).

In the matter of consumer protection, article 141 of the Consumer Code allows access to ADR procedures for the resolution of disputes between consumers and companies. The most relevant ADR procedures in this field concern disputes:

• on banking and financial transactions and services, resolved through recourse to the Arbitro Bancario Finanziario (ABF);
• on the violation of the obligations of diligence, fairness, information and transparency incumbent on intermediaries providing investment services or collective asset management, resolved through recourse to the Arbitro per le Controversie Finanziarie (ACF);
• on the provision of electronic communication services, resolved through recourse to the Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM);
• concerning the supply of electricity and gas services, integrated water services and district heating/cooling services, settled through recourse to the Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA).

The choice of an ADR method depends largely on the nature of the dispute, the relationship between the parties and the expected outcomes.

In the Italian legal system, civil and commercial litigation is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), as amended by Legislative Decree No. 149/2022 and No. 164/2024 (so-called Cartabia Reform). The CPC covers almost all stages and phases of the litigation, including enforcement proceedings and special proceedings, such as arbitration and class action. The CPC also provides some general principles (e.g. powers and duties of the judge, the parties and counsel, the dispositive principle, the principle of standing and capacity to act, the principle of adversarial proceeding).

Some rules are also included in the Italian Civil Code (e.g. on certain aspects of evidence).

Civil jurisdiction is exercised by ordinary judges. Among these, we distinguish: (i) judges of first instance (Justice of the Peace and the Tribunal, depending on the subject matter and value of the case); (ii) judges of second instance (the Tribunal, for cases decided at first instance by the Justice of the Peace, and the Court of Appeals, for cases decided at first instance by the Tribunal); and (iii) judges of third instance (the Court of Cassation).

The law may provide exceptions to the above. For example, in matters of enforcement of foreign judgments, the Court of Appeal of the place where the measure is to be enforced has exclusive jurisdiction.

The Tribunal is competent for all cases that are not within the jurisdiction of another court and for cases concerning taxes and duties, the status and capacity of people, honorary rights, counterfeit claims, compulsory execution and cases of indeterminable value. Specialised chambers ratione materiae are established in the principal Tribunals.

There are 126 Tribunals and 26 Courts of Appeal in Italy.

The Court of Cassation (based in Rome) is a court of legitimacy, which ensures the exact observance and uniform interpretation of the law, the unity of national objective law and respect for the limits of the different jurisdictions.

As a result of the recent reform of the CPC, there are currently two different ways in Italy in which the cognitive process can initiate, provided the legal requirements are met: the ordinary procedure and the simplified procedure. The latter should accelerate and simplify the proceedings at first instance.

In general, the time to get to trial varies depending on the type of procedure initiated:

• in the ordinary procedure, the claimant must set the date of the first hearing in the writ of summons. If the writ of summons is to be served in Italy, a period of no less than 120 days must elapse between the date of service and the date of the first hearing. Conversely, if the service is to be made abroad, such period shall be no less than 150 days. The first hearing is postponed if the judge ascertains the presence of irregularities in the proceedings. In any case, the judge can always postpone the date of the first hearing up to 45 days (this is a non-mandatory deadline). Before the first hearing, the parties may file three submissions, including their requests for evidence, within the time limits set, under penalty of forfeiture. During the first hearing, before proceeding to trial, the parties must appear in person and the judge attempts to conciliate the dispute, otherwise he decides on the requests for evidence and arranges the schedule of subsequent hearings;
• in the simplified procedure, the case begins with a petition to the court, and it is the judge who sets the date of the first hearing by decree. Between the date of the service of the petition and the decree and the date of the first hearing must elapse – at least – 40 days (if the place of service is in Italy) or 60 days (if the place of service is abroad). During the first hearing, the judge verifies whether the legal conditions for the application of the simplified procedure are met. The judge, if requested by the parties, sets peremptory deadlines for the filing of two written briefs, respectively, to clarify the claims and provide evidence, and to submit a reply and counterevidence. If it is necessary to take evidence, the judge proceeds accordingly.

In civil proceedings, only hearings scheduled for oral arguments are held in public, unless the judge orders that they be held in private (this may occur when the judge deems it necessary for security or morality reasons or to grant public order).

In Italy, the majority of hearings are hearings for the case management (rather than for oral arguments), held in private, with the judge, the parties’ counsels, and the parties themselves present. The presence of the parties or their representatives is generally not compulsory, except in cases provided by law (such as the hearing scheduled for the attempt to conciliate the dispute).

Documents filed by the parties during the proceedings are not accessible to the public. Access to the trial file presupposes the status of a potential party and the existence of an interest worthy of protection.

In Italy, the ordinary limitation period is 10 years and applies to rights for which the law does not provide a different term. For example, the right to claim damages for breach of contract is subject to the ordinary ten-year limitation period.

However, the law provides for several exceptions with shorter limitation periods. For instance, the right to claim damages for tort (non-contractual liability) is subject to a five-year limitation period. Similarly, the right to receive rental payments and rights arising from corporate relationships in companies registered with the Companies Register are also time-barred after 5 years. Other specific provisions of law establish a five-year limitation period, while others provide for even shorter periods.

The limitation period begins to run from the moment the right can be exercised (article 2935 of the Italian Civil Code), and it may be suspended or interrupted.

If a dispute concerns certain specific matters, mediation or assisted negotiation (‘negoziazione assistita’) are compulsory. This means that, in such matters, the attempt at mediation or assisted negotiation constitutes a prerequisite for the commencement of the proceeding.

Mediation is carried out by an impartial third party (the so-called ‘mediator’), who helps the parties in settling the dispute. On the other hand, in the procedure of assisted negotiation the parties cooperate to resolve their dispute amicably with the assistance of their legal counsel.

Should the parties fail to undertake the mandatory mediation or assisted negotiation, the court before which the proceeding is commenced shall order the parties to remedy.

If the parties don’t comply, the court must declare the claim inadmissible, thereby preventing the proceeding from continuing.

Under Italian law, civil proceedings are initiated at the request of a party. Proceedings may be commenced either by serving a writ of summons or by filing a petition with the court.

Service of the initiating act on the opposing party is always required. If the proceedings are initiated by petition, the order issued by the judge setting the hearing date must also be served.

The service of legal documents is governed by law, which regulates its form and legal effects.

The service of party’s court filings may be effected either by the court bailiff or by the party’s legal counsel. However, after the entry into force of the Cartabia Reform, the party’s legal counsel must effect service via certified electronic mail or by any other method provided by law. Only if service through the aforementioned methods is not possible or has been unsuccessful for reasons not attributable to the recipient, the bailiff shall effect service upon the attorney’s request.

The court must determine, before addressing any other issue, whether it has jurisdiction. The decision on jurisdiction may, at the court’s discretion, be made either at the outset of the proceedings or at the end of the trial, once all evidentiary activities on the merits have been completed.

In disputes between Italian parties, the Italian courts automatically have jurisdiction.

In cases involving foreign parties or cross-border legal relationships, the court must verify whether Italian jurisdiction exists based on EU regulations (e.g., Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 – Brussels I bis), international conventions to which Italy is a party and Italian private international law (Law No. 218/1995).

When a dispute involves elements of internationality, the court determines the applicable substantive law in accordance with Italian private international law, which sets out the criteria for identifying the governing law in cross-border civil and commercial matters (Law No. 218/1995). However, according to the principle of the primacy of EU law, European regulations – such as Rome I (on contractual obligations) and Rome II (on non-contractual obligations) – prevail over the domestic provisions of Law No. 218/1995.

Pursuant to Article 13 of Law No. 218/1995, ‘foreign law shall be applied by the Italian court when it is designated as applicable by the relevant conflict-of-law rules’. Even if a conflict-of-law rule refers to a foreign law, the court shall not apply it if that law is contrary to Italian international public policy (‘ordine pubblico internazionale’) or if it cannot be ascertained or concretely applied.

In Italy, the most common procedure allowing a creditor to obtain an enforceable judgment without a full trial is the ‘decreto ingiuntivo’ (order for payment) procedure. It is a summary proceeding without an initial adversarial phase, aimed at the prompt recovery of claims that are certain, liquid, due, and supported by written evidence.

The creditor files a petition with the competent court, attaching the relevant documentary proof. If the judge finds the claim well-founded, an order for payment (‘decreto ingiuntivo’) is issued, which must be served on the debtor within 60 days (or 90 days if served abroad). The debtor may object to the order within 40 days from service (or 50 or 60 days if served in an EU Member State or in a non-EU country, respectively), thereby initiating ordinary proceedings to determine the existence or non-existence of the claim. If no objection is filed, or if the objection is dismissed, the order becomes enforceable, and the creditor may initiate enforcement proceedings.

Even during the course of the proceedings, a party may request the judge to issue an injunction order, provided that the conditions required for the issuance of a ‘decreto ingiuntivo’ are met.

Following the Cartabia Reform, in certain types of disputes, the judge may, upon request of a party, issue an order granting the claim where the facts alleged by the claimant are proven and the defendant’s objections appear manifestly groundless. Likewise, upon the party’s request, the judge may issue an order dismissing the claim when it is manifestly groundless or in other cases provided by law.

Moreover, under certain circumstances, the judge may issue a precautionary (interim) measure with anticipatory effects and reduced ancillary function, meaning that the party is not required to initiate ordinary proceedings on the merits to confirm the content of the interim relief.

In Italy, it is possible to obtain interim (or precautionary) measures, which are urgent and temporary orders that a judge may issue either before or during the course of legal proceedings. These measures aim to preserve a legal or factual situation, prevent serious and irreparable harm, or partially anticipate the effects of the final judgment.

To be granted interim relief, the petitioner must demonstrate two essential requirements:

• the so-called fumus boni iuris, which is the appearance of a valid legal claim, i.e., the likelihood that the right asserted is well-founded in substance;
• the so-called periculum in mora, which is a concrete and imminent risk that any delay in granting relief (i.e., waiting for the outcome of ordinary proceedings) may result in serious and irreparable harm.

The CPC provides for both typical and atypical interim measures.

Typical measures include:

• conservatory seizure, to prevent the debtor from disposing of assets;
• judicial seizure, to preserve the condition of disputed assets;
• injunctive relief, such as orders prohibiting acts that infringe intellectual property rights or constitute unfair competition;
• precautionary measures in corporate matters, for example the removal of company directors.

Atypical measures consist of any other form of interim relief that the court may deem appropriate to protect a threatened right, where no typical measure is provided for by law.

In cases of particular urgency, the judge may issue an interim order without prior notice to the opposing party (inaudita altera parte), and will subsequently schedule an inter partes hearing to confirm, amend, or revoke the measure.

Other proceedings of a precautionary nature include possessory actions, which are aimed at promptly and summarily protecting the possession of both movable and immovable property against acts of disturbance or unlawful dispossession.

Italian civil proceedings are predominantly conducted in writing and develop through the submission of briefs outlining the parties’ arguments and defences, with supporting documents attached.

The scope of the briefs and the deadlines for their submission depend on the type of proceedings, whether ordinary or simplified.

In the ordinary proceedings the defendant must file its statement of defence no later than 70 days before the hearing specified in the summons.

Subsequently, under penalty of forfeiture, the parties may file:

• at least 40 days before the first hearing, a brief containing claims and defences arising from the counterclaim or objections raised by the defendant, as well as specifying or amending previously made claims, defences, and conclusions; in the same brief, the claimant may request permission to bring a third party into the proceedings, if the need arises due to the defendant’s defences;
• at least 20 days before the first hearing, a brief to respond to new or amended claims and defences raised by the other parties, propose defences arising from new or amended claims or objections, as well as indicate evidence and submit documentary evidence;
• at least 10 days before the first hearing, a brief to respond to new objections and present evidence in rebuttal.

Once the case is deemed ready for decision, the court sets the hearing to close the proceedings and take the matter under deliberation and grant the parties:

• a sixty-day term before the hearing for the filing of written submissions limited to the specification of final pleadings;
• a thirty-day term before the hearing for the submission of closing briefs;
• a fifteen-day term before the hearing for the submission of replies. In lieu of written submissions, the court may order an oral hearing or a hybrid procedure involving both written and oral argument.

In the simplified proceedings the defendant appears before the court by filing a statement of defence within the time limit set by the judge, which must be no later than 10 days before the first hearing. At the first hearing, if necessary due to the arguments raised by either party, and upon their request, the judge may grant a peremptory time limit of no more than 20 days for the filing of briefs aimed at clarifying or amending claims, defences, and conclusions, as well as for the indication of evidence and the submission of documents. An additional time limit of no more than 10 days may be granted for replies and for the indication of rebuttal evidence.

When the case is ready for decision, the judge schedules a hearing in which the parties present their oral arguments and delivers the judgment at the end of the hearing.

Where the relevant conditions are met, if the judge intends to base the decision on an issue raised ex officio, the judge shall reserve the decision and, under penalty of nullity, shall grant the parties a period — not less than 20 days and not more than 40 days from the date of notification — to file briefs containing their observations on the said issue.

In Italy, ordinary civil proceedings are governed by the principle of party disposition of evidence. As a general rule, therefore, the judge may not order the taking of evidence ex officio. Italian law also adheres to the principle of the burden of proof, meaning that the party asserting a fact bears the burden of proving it, as it forms the basis of their claim.

Upon request by a party, the judge may order the other party or a third party to produce a document in court, provided that:

• the document is essential for the decision and is precisely identified (general or exploratory requests for disclosure are not permitted);
• the production of the document does not cause serious harm to the party or third party and does not violate any of the following confidentiality obligations: (i) professional secrecy (e.g., lawyers, doctors, notaries), in which case the document cannot be produced without proper authorization or consent; (ii) official or State secrecy, in which case the document may only be disclosed with the approval of the competent authority.

A party may also invoke industrial or banking secrecy, in which case the judge may authorize the production of the document with appropriate limitations.

Furthermore, a party may object to the production of a document containing personal data or confidential information (such as emails, chats, or internal agreements); in such cases, the judge must balance the right to evidence with the right to privacy, as protected by the Italian Constitution.

In any event, the judge may order the redaction or masking of parts of the document, in accordance with data protection principles.

The court may also request written information from public authorities regarding documents in their possession that are considered necessary for the proceedings.

In Italian civil proceedings, witness evidence is a formal and strictly regulated means of proof.

Generally, witnesses are not allowed to submit written statements on their own initiative or at the request of a party outside the proceedings. Witnesses testify orally before the judge during the evidentiary hearing. Specifically, it is the judge who poses to the witnesses the specific and detailed questions previously submitted by the parties in written pleadings and declared admissible by the court. Where there are discrepancies between the testimonies of two or more witnesses, the judge, either ex officio or upon request of a party, may order a confrontation between them.

Alternatively, the judge, with the parties’ agreement and considering the nature of the case and other relevant circumstances, may allow the witness to respond in writing to the questions within a fixed deadline. After reviewing the written responses, the judge may still order the witness to appear and testify orally.

Italian civil procedure does not provide for a mechanism of cross-examination in the strict sense; however, during oral testimony, the parties may request the judge to ask follow-up or clarifying questions. In their evidentiary briefs, the parties may also request the summoning of rebuttal witnesses in response to the opposing party’s admitted evidence.

The Italian legal system does not recognize depositions: as a rule, testimony given outside the courtroom, even if under oath (e.g., before a notary public), does not carry full evidentiary value in civil proceedings.

In Italian civil proceedings, expert evidence (so-called ‘consulenza tecnica d’ufficio’, i.e. court-appointed expert opinion) is permitted. The court-appointed expert (CTU) is designated by the judge when technical assessments are required that fall outside the judge’s expertise.

The parties may appoint their own technical consultants (‘consulenti tecnici di parte’, or CTPs), who assist the CTU during the expert operations and may submit observations and objections.

The CTU must be a qualified expert registered in a special list maintained by the court and must act impartially. Before commencing the assignment, the CTU is required to take an oath to perform the task faithfully and to the best of their ability. Upon completion of the technical operations, the CTU must submit a written report within the deadline set by the court.

The CTU does not resolve the dispute but provides a technical opinion which the judge may evaluate freely.

Even outside of the CTU framework, the parties are allowed to engage their own technical experts, who may produce written expert reports. The parties’ technical consultants are not required to provide impartial opinions (pro veritate) and, therefore, their conclusions constitute arguments in support of the party’s position, which the judge may freely assess.

First-instance final judgments may be challenged by means of an appeal, unless expressly excluded by law. The competent authority is either the Tribunal sitting in a panel (‘tribunale in composizione collegiale’) or the Court of Appeal, depending on which judge issued the decision (i.e., the Justice of the Peace or the Tribunal). A further appeal to the Court of Cassation is permitted as a third and final level of judicial review, but only on grounds of law (i.e., errors in the application or interpretation of the law). In rare cases, an extraordinary appeal is allowed whereby a party may directly petition the Court of Cassation without first appealing to the Court of Appeal, provided that both parties consent or where such a procedure is expressly permitted by law.

The time limits for filing an appeal are 30 days from service of the judgment on the opposing party by the interested party, or 6 months from the date of publication of the judgment if it has not been served. The time limits for lodging an appeal before the Court of Cassation are 60 days if the judgment is served, or 6 months if not.

For the appeal of certain types of decisions – such as those concerning jurisdiction and competence – the law provides for special procedural rules. For example, if the court of first instance declares a lack of jurisdiction, the decision may be immediately challenged by filing an appeal with the Court of Cassation. Likewise, if the court of first instance declines its competence on grounds of territorial, pecuniary, or subject-matter jurisdiction, the party wishing to contest the ruling must file a so-called ‘regolamento di competenza’ (jurisdictional conflict motion) directly before the Court of Cassation.

As for interim (precautionary) measures, they may be challenged by way of a ‘reclamo’ (internal appeal):

• before the Tribunal sitting as a panel, if the measure was issued by a single judge;
• before the Court of Appeal, if the measure was issued by the same Court (in such cases, the appeal is heard by a different panel of judges than the one that issued the challenged order).

With regard to evidentiary rulings (e.g., orders admitting or rejecting evidence), these are not immediately appealable. Any objections or challenges to such rulings may only be raised in the context of an appeal against the final judgment.

In Italy, the enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by a complex framework of national, European, and international rules, depending on the origin of the decision (EU or non-EU) and the subject matter (civil, criminal, etc.).

With regard to civil and commercial matters, judgments issued by courts of European Union Member States are governed by Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis). Under this Regulation, judicial decisions rendered in one EU Member State are automatically recognized in the others, without the need for exequatur proceedings, and may be enforced without a declaration of enforceability.

As for civil and commercial judgments issued by non-EU countries, Articles 64 to 71 of Law No. 218/1995, along with any applicable bilateral or multilateral treaties, apply.

Pursuant to Law No. 218/1995, such judgments must undergo a recognition procedure (so-called ‘delibazione’) before the competent Italian Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal assesses whether the recognition criteria are met, including:

• the judgment must have been issued by a court deemed internationally competent under Italian standards;
• the parties must have been duly summoned;
• the judgment must be final and binding in the country of origin;
• the judgment must not be contrary to Italian public policy (‘ordine pubblico’);
• the judgment must not conflict with a prior decision rendered by an Italian court between the same parties; and
• there must be no pending proceedings before an Italian court between the same parties and concerning the same matter, commenced before the foreign proceedings.

If the Court of Appeal grants recognition, the foreign judgment obtains enforceability in Italy and may be executed as if it were an Italian judgment.

In Italy, litigation costs may be recovered from the opposing party, subject to certain limits and in accordance with statutory rules.

In the judgment that concludes the proceedings, the court orders the losing party to reimburse the prevailing party for legal costs and fees, and determines the amount to be awarded, including attorneys’ fees.

The court may exclude the reimbursement of costs incurred by the prevailing party if it considers them excessive or unnecessary. Moreover, regardless of the outcome of the case, the court may order a party to reimburse costs incurred by the other party if it has breached the duty to act with fairness and good faith during the proceedings.

In cases of partial defeat (mutual loss), or where the legal issue was entirely novel or resolved contrary to established case law, the court may offset costs between the parties, either partially or entirely.

In practice, a cost award may include:

• procedural expenses (e.g. court fees, service of process, revenue stamps, court appointed expert fees);
• legal fees (attorneys’ fees, calculated by the court based on statutory parameters);
• expenses for party-appointed CTPs, if deemed necessary and proportionate.

The law also provides for the imposition of a monetary penalty on a party that initiates or defends a lawsuit in a manifestly groundless, abusive, or improper manner. If it appears that a party has acted or defended the case in bad faith or with gross negligence, the court may order that party to compensate the other for the damages caused. Furthermore, if a precautionary or enforcement request is manifestly unfounded, the court may award damages to the other party. Finally, the court may, even ex officio, order a party to pay an amount – equitably determined – to the opposing party, if it finds that the proceedings have been abused. This sanction is distinct from and in addition to the order for reimbursement of legal costs.

In Italy there are two different collective redress mechanisms. The collective action contemplated by the CPC and the representative action on behalf of consumers contemplated by the Italian Consumers Code (ICC) and introduced to implement the EU Representative Action Directive (RAD). With both kinds of action the claimant may seek inhibitory or compensatory relief.

The compensatory collective action foreseen by the CPC (the so-called class action) is of general application. It is available for any kind of claimant (firms, consumers, or public entities) and for any kind of infringement (competition law, misrepresentation, unfair commercial practices, product liability, etc.), provided that the claims of the members of the class are sufficiently similar. This compensatory collective action may be filed by any member of the class or by any non-profit association that represents the collective interests of the class. It is a “late” opt-in collective redress mechanism, where members of the class – as defined by the court at the admissibility stage – may opt-in immediately after the action is admitted, but also immediately after it has been decided by the court.

The representative action on behalf of consumers foreseen by the ICC may be filed only by duly registered qualified entities, such as certain consumer associations considered more representative than others of consumers interests. It is available only for the infringements of EU law set out by the Annex to the RAD (e.g. unfair terms in consumers contracts, unfair commercial practices, infringements against MiFID, product liability, etc.). Most notably it is not available for infringements of competition law. Also this representative action is a “late” opt-in action.

Both kinds of action foresee special rules on the financing of the action. In particular, in both cases, if the action is successful, the Tribunal will award to the lawyer of the claimant a success fee that ranges from 0,5% to 9% of the total reward paid to all members of the class that opted-in, depending on the number of members opting-in (the greater the number of opt-ins the lower the percentage of the award to be paid to the lawyer). Funders are allowed to share in the success fee of the lawyer of the claimant. However, given the limited entity of the success fee, filing either a collective or a representative action is attractive only for cases where the individual damage is high so that the size of the total award is large, the number of victims is low so that the percentage of the lawyer’s success fee is closer to 9%, and the costs of litigation are low.

In Italy the assignment of claims is perfectly valid and enforceable, both for claims for pecuniary (material) and non-pecuniary (immaterial) damages. Therefore, given the limited attractiveness, at least for the time being, of the Italian class action, all major collective litigation in Italy is brought through the assignment model, which has the advantage of allowing the funder to negotiate with the assignors a greater success fee for him or herself.

Under Italian civil procedure, third-party intervention in ongoing proceedings is permitted, subject to the conditions established by law. Such intervention may take the following forms:

• voluntary intervention, whereby a third party seeks either to assert an independent right in relation to the subject matter of the dispute (principal intervention), to support the position of one of the existing parties (simple joinder), or to participate in proceedings involving a legal relationship in which the third party is necessarily involved (compulsory joinder);
• intervention upon request by a party, when a party believes that a third party may have an interest or liability in the dispute;
• intervention ordered by the court, in cases involving necessary joinder of parties.

Furthermore, the court may, either on its own motion or upon request by a party, order the consolidation of multiple proceedings pending before it, where there is either an objective or subjective connection between the cases (i.e., they involve the same parties or arise from common facts or legal issues), in order to avoid conflicting judgments and to promote procedural efficiency.

In Italy third-party litigation funding is generally permissible. Litigation funding may be performed either by funding the claimant or by purchasing the claim. The first mean of funding is typically used in large individual claims, such as arbitration, while the second is typically used in collective claims, such as private enforcement of competition cases.

According to some, engaging in litigation funding on a professional (ie, recurring) basis is an activity exclusively reserved for financial intermediaries, alternative investment funds (AIFs), securitisation companies, or other entities subject to the direct or indirect supervision of Bank of Italy. Therefore, it may be advisable, at least for the time being, to use one of these structures to engage on a recurring basis in third-party litigation funding.

According to Italian procedural law, funders may not be made liable for the costs incurred by the other side. This follows from the fact that, on the one hand, the funder is not a party to the proceedings and, on the other hand, parties are not obliged, as a general rule, to disclose to the court the existence of a third-party funder. However, if the assignment model is used, then the funder becomes a party to the proceedings, and will therefore be held liable for adverse costs, if the case is lost.

Special provisions apply to funding of representative actions brought by qualified entities (eg, consumer associations) on behalf of consumers. In particular:

• The qualified entity that brings the action is obliged to disclose to the tribunal the fact that the action is financed by a third-party funder and its identity.
• Before admitting the action, the tribunal must verify, also by its own motion, that there is no conflict of interest between the third-party funder and the interests of the consumers represented in the action, and in particular, that the funder is not a competitor of the defendant or does not depend on the defendant (Article 140-septies, paragraph 8(e) of the Italian Consumer Code, implementing Article 10 of Directive 2020/1828/EU).
• Any settlement between the qualified entity and the defendant must be approved by the tribunal, which will also verify that the funder did not unduly influence the terms of the settlement in a manner that would be detrimental to the collective interests of the consumers concerned (recital 52 of Directive 2020/1828/EU).

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption and use of digital tools in Italian civil proceedings, including:

• remote hearings held via videoconferencing platforms such as Microsoft Teams;
• written submissions in lieu of oral hearings, whereby parties submit written briefs on fixed dates without appearing in court;
• generalized electronic filing of pleadings and documents through the Telematic Civil Procedure System (‘Processo Civile Telematico’, or PCT).

The emergency prompted the legislature to introduce or expedite structural reforms, many of which were incorporated into the Cartabia Reform, including greater emphasis on written proceedings, incentives for mediation and assisted negotiation, and a broader reorganization of civil procedure toward simplification and digitalization.

One of the advantages of litigating international commercial disputes in Italy is the guarantee of access to an independent judiciary, with professional judges and a well-developed legal framework in the field of private international law and procedural law. Moreover, in Italy, there are specialized business sections within the Tribunals and the Courts of Appeal. These are special divisions established to handle particularly complex civil and commercial cases. Specifically, the business sections deal with a wide range of disputes in the field of business law, including corporate litigation, intellectual and industrial property, commercial contracts, competition and antitrust matters, and disputes between companies. These sections are composed of judges with expertise in commercial, corporate, and industrial law, and are characterized by a high level of technical competence.

As far as the length of time required to obtain a final and non-appealable decision, it should be noted that, according to the official statistics of the Italian Ministry of Justice, in the last decade the duration of civil proceedings has decreased significantly, substantially aligning Italy to other EU Member States. The National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR 2021–2026) set the objective of further increasing the efficiency of judicial proceedings and reducing the backlog of pending cases. It should also be noted that most of the judgments are immediately provisionally enforceable, meaning that the creditor may initiate enforcement proceedings without waiting for the decision to become final.

The main disadvantage of litigating in Italy is that the use of the Italian language is mandatory throughout the entire proceeding. However, when a person who does not understand Italian must be heard, the judge may appoint an interpreter. In addition, when it is necessary to examine documents not written in Italian, the judge may appoint a translator.

Private enforcement of competition law and more generally collective litigation for infringements of EU law in the areas of ESG, consumer law, and financial market regulation, are the most likely growth area for commercial disputes in Italy for the next 5 years. In addition, the sectors of renewable energy, manufacturing and construction, fintech, and international trade could be poised to see an increase in commercial disputes in Italy over the next future, due to growing regulatory complexity, economic challenges, and geopolitical dynamics.

In Italy, over the next 5 years, the impact of technology on commercial litigation could be significant. Given that the implementation of the PCT has considerably improved the management of court filings and documents, reducing time and costs, it is foreseeable that further digitalization will occur, with more integrated platforms and advanced functionalities for case management.

Moreover, the use of artificial intelligence could support activities such as document analysis and legal research.

Additionally, tools like online mediation and arbitration could become more widespread, facilitating the faster and more cost-effective resolution of commercial disputes.