Requesting Information from Public Authorities under Art. 213 CPC: A Guide for Lawyers

1. 1.

   The subsidiary nature of the legal tool

   Article 213 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.) does not grant a subjective right to the parties, but rather a discretionary power to the judge. High court case law, confirmed by 2026 trends (refer to Cass. Civ. n. 20973/2021), reiterates that this power is subsidiary. Consequently, a lawyer cannot use an Art. 213 c.p.c. petition to fill evidentiary gaps or bypass the burden of proof (onere della prova) under Art. 2697 c.c. Before requesting the judge's intervention, counsel must exhaust ordinary administrative access remedies (L. 241/1990 or FOIA). Only upon showing a formal denial by the authority or an objective impossibility to obtain the document administratively will the judge activate this official investigative channel.

2. 2.

   Requirements of indispensability and specificity

   To succeed with the motion, the lawyer must analytically justify the indispensability of the requested information. So-called fishing expeditions (istanze esplorative) are prohibited, meaning generic requests aimed at checking if the Public Administration (P.A.) holds any useful evidence. The motion must precisely identify the act or document, the holding authority, and the causal link between the information and the decisive fact to be proven. If the fact can be established through other means, such as witness testimony or documents already held by the parties, the judge will reject the request. Specificity is the fundamental metric to distinguish the proper use of Art. 213 c.p.c. from a generic investigation into public records.

3. 3.

   Subject matter: facts and records, not evaluations

   Art. 213 c.p.c. exclusively concerns the acquisition of written information regarding acts and documents already held by the administration or historical facts recorded in its registries. It is strictly forbidden to ask the P.A. to provide judgments, technical evaluations, or legal opinions on the case. Such activities fall within the scope of a Court-Appointed Expert Witness (Consulenza Tecnica d'Ufficio or CTU). Therefore, the lawyer must carefully phrase questions that require objective and documentary answers. For instance, it is admissible to ask if an inspection occurred on a specific date, but it is inadmissible to ask the P.A. whether it believes a private party is liable based on that inspection.

4. Apply this research directly with edit.legal

   Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. Try edit.legal for free, no credit card.

   Try edit.legal
   4.

   Impact of digitalization and the 2026 National Data Plan

   In the 2026 operational context, the digitalization of the P.A. has profoundly changed the application of Art. 213 c.p.c. With the consolidation of the National Data Plan (Piano Nazionale Dati) and database interoperability via the PDND platform, much information once accessible only via court order is now directly retrievable by lawyers using digital identity (SPID/CIE). Lower courts have become extremely rigorous: if the data is contained in a digital public registry that the lawyer can access independently, the Art. 213 c.p.c. motion will be declared inadmissible for lack of subsidiarity. Counsel must therefore declare in the motion that they have verified the impossibility of direct electronic access under current digital administration laws.

5. 5.

   Using AI to draft the motion's reasoning

   Generative AI can support lawyers in drafting more effective motions. Models like ChatGPT or Claude can be used to analyze the P.A.'s reasons for rejection during the administrative access phase and structure a logical rebuttal highlighting the necessity of judicial intervention. AI can be prompted to verify if the description of the act in the motion meets the specificity criteria required by the Court of Cassation (Cassazione), reducing the risk of the motion being labeled as a fishing expedition. However, human oversight remains vital to avoid hallucinations regarding legal citations or dates, especially concerning recent 2026 reforms on privacy and public data management.

6. 6.

   Relationship with the order of production under Art. 210 CPC

   A fine line exists between Art. 210 c.p.c. (order of production against a party or third party) and Art. 213 c.p.c. The distinction lies in the fact that Art. 213 concerns written information that the P.A. must compile by drawing from its records, whereas Art. 210 concerns the production of a specific, pre-existing document. In 2026 practice, when the administration acts jure privatorum (as a private entity), courts tend to prefer the Art. 210 c.p.c. mechanism. To maximize success rates, it is advisable to draft the motion citing Art. 213 c.p.c. and, in the alternative (in via subordinata), Art. 210 c.p.c., should the judge deem the P.A. liable to produce the document as a third-party holder.

References: Articolo 213 Codice di Procedura CivileArticolo 210 Codice di Procedura CivileArticolo 2697 Codice CivileLegge 7 agosto 1990 n. 241Cassazione Civile, Sez. VI, Ordinanza n. 20973/2021

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 19 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