Truck cartel: Milan ruling finally puts a number on the damage

The first-instance civil judgment, delivered on 11 January 2026, concerns claims brought by 14 Italian haulage companies against Iveco, Scania, DAF and MAN. The case is part of a broader collective action launched in 2017 by CNA Fita, which represents small and medium-sized road transport operators.

Although the decision can still be appealed, it is the first Milan ruling to translate the EU truck cartel infringement into a quantified damages award, and it provides a concrete reference point for ongoing and future claims in Italy.

8% overcharge, plus “lingering” effect

The court recognised an 8% overcharge on the purchase price of 141 medium and heavy trucks bought during the cartel period (1997–2011). In addition, it awarded 4% damages for six vehicles purchased shortly after the end of the cartel, acknowledging a so-called “lingering effect”, where distorted prices persist beyond the formal end of the infringement.

Revaluation and interest were also granted, calculated according to criteria set out in the court’s reasoning.

Unlike some earlier Italian decisions that relied on a purely equitable lump-sum approach, the Milan court based its assessment on a court-appointed expert analysis (CTU). While the judges ultimately adjusted the expert’s findings, they explicitly rejected an automatic or standardised percentage and justified the final figures through a critical review of the economic evidence.

In European terms, the 8% figure sits above the levels often awarded through purely equitable assessments in other jurisdictions, which frequently cluster around 5%, but below some higher national precedents, such as earlier rulings in southern Italy or isolated Spanish cases.

Key legal points addressed

The judgment deals in detail with several recurring issues in follow-on cartel litigation:

• Binding effect of the European Commission decision: the court confirmed that the EU infringement decision is binding as to the existence of the cartel, but not automatically as to causation or the amount of damage, which must still be assessed by the civil court.
• Antitrust Damages Directive: the legal presumption of harm introduced by the directive was held not applicable ratione temporis, given that the cartel ended well before the directive was transposed into Italian law. Nevertheless, the court relied on the EU principle of effectiveness to avoid imposing an excessively high burden of proof on claimants.
• Passing-on defence: arguments that haulage companies passed the overcharge on to customers were rejected, with the court placing the burden of proof firmly on the defendants.
• Tax benefits: claims that tax deductions should reduce the compensable damage were also dismissed.

The judges referred extensively to foreign case law, including decisions from Spain, the United Kingdom and Germany, reflecting the increasingly European character of truck cartel litigation.

Limited scope, wider implications

The Milan case covers only 14 companies, but CNA Fita has stated that around 3,000 transport operators are involved in related actions supported by the association. According to CNA communications, the ruling translates into an average compensation of around €13,000 per vehicle, including interest, although the exact amount depends on individual purchase prices and timing.

The decision does not resolve the broader Italian landscape, which remains fragmented. Other haulage associations have pursued claims via collective proceedings in the Netherlands, while Germany continues to host hundreds of parallel cases, particularly before the Munich Regional Court.