Practical guide

How to draft a request for information from the public administration under Art. 213 c.p.c. with AI

3 min read · Updated September 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

Art. 213 c.p.c. regulates the court's power to ex officio request written information from the Public Administration (Pubblica Amministrazione) regarding its acts and documents. Although this is a discretionary power of the judge, the interested party must submit a thoroughly reasoned motion to prompt its exercise during the proceedings.

In brief

The motion under Art. 213 c.p.c. (Request for information from the public administration) is a subsidiary evidentiary tool for obtaining written data from the PA that is otherwise unavailable. To be granted, the motion must precisely specify the facts to be verified and demonstrate that the party was unable to obtain the documents through administrative access (accesso agli atti). It cannot be used to bypass the burden of proof for facts that the party could have proven through ordinary means.

The steps

1.
Verification of subsidiarity and impossibility of access
Before drafting the motion, it is essential to document that the information cannot be obtained through ordinary administrative channels (L. 241/1990). The court will reject the request if the party fails to demonstrate that they unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to the documents. edit.legal can help compare the administration's refusals with the required evidentiary scope to structure the reasoning for judicial intervention.
2.
Identification of specific facts and the competent PA
The document must precisely indicate the relevant public office and the specific facts upon which information is requested. Generic requests for the transmission of entire files are not permitted. One must isolate specific factual elements contained in PA acts that are decisive for the case. edit.legal facilitates this phase by analyzing case documents to identify information gaps that only the Public Administration can fill.
3.
Reasoning on relevance and evidentiary significance
The motion must explain why the requested information is necessary for the final decision. While the power under Art. 213 c.p.c. is discretionary (officioso), the judge must be convinced of its utility. It is necessary to link the information to the disputed points of the litigation, ensuring the request does not appear as an impermissible 'fishing expedition'. A correct legal qualification of the link between the administrative act and the facts of the case is essential.
4.
Compliance with evidentiary deadlines
The motion should be filed within the deadlines for evidentiary submissions, typically in the briefs under Art. 171-ter c.p.c. Although the power is ex officio and could technically be exercised at any stage, practice and case law suggest not waiting beyond the factual clarification phase. Filing the motion promptly prevents objections regarding the dilatory nature of the request and allows the judge to evaluate the integration of the evidentiary material.
5.
Structure of the query for the Public Administration
It is helpful to suggest a set of questions for the judge to address to the PA. These questions must be drafted clearly, allowing the public entity to respond with objective data rather than subjective or discretionary evaluations. edit.legal can generate drafts of technical queries based on the facts alleged in the briefs, reducing the risk of evasive or inconclusive responses from the consulted administration.

Legal basis: Art. 213 c.p.c.Art. 118 c.p.c.Art. 210 c.p.c.L. 7 agosto 1990, n. 241

Mistakes to avoid

Using Art. 213 c.p.c. as a fishing expedition to find evidence not yet identified.
Failure to specifically indicate the PA office competent to provide the information.
Filing the motion late, after the evidentiary phase has closed.
Failure to attach evidence of the attempted administrative access under L. 241/90.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between an order for production under Art. 210 c.p.c. and a request under Art. 213 c.p.c.?

An order for production (Art. 210) concerns specific documents held by a party or a third party, whereas a request under Art. 213 concerns written information derived from the PA's activities, which may not necessarily be contained in a single pre-existing document.

Can the Public Administration refuse to respond to the judge?

The PA is obliged to cooperate with the judicial authority. In case of failure to respond or refusal not justified by state secrets or other legal reasons, the judge may draw evidentiary inferences under Art. 116 c.p.c. or issue a follow-up request.

Can the motion under Art. 213 c.p.c. be rejected if the party has not attempted administrative access?

Yes, prevailing case law holds that the judge's power is subsidiary and cannot replace the party's duty to obtain available documents through the administrative transparency tools provided by law.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 18 September 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction

What edit.legal automates

—Analysis of PA access denials to justify the necessity of judicial intervention.
—Suggestion of specific and technical questions to be submitted to the administration.
—Verification of consistency between evidentiary motions and the disputed points defined in the briefs.