Insights

Drafting Information Requests to Public Authorities under Art. 213 c.p.c. with AI

5 min read · Updated November 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

The request for information from the Public Administration (richiesta di informazioni alla Pubblica Amministrazione) under Art. 213 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (codice di procedura civile, c.p.c.) is a key evidentiary tool for acquiring technical or administrative data in civil trials. In the 2026 legal framework, this procedure is shaped by the Cartabia Reform and digitalization, requiring a reasoned motion (sollecito motivato) that proves the indispensability of the evidence. The use of AI now allows for more precise drafting, effectively linking the facts of the case to the specific administrative documentation requested from the authority.

In brief

A request under Art. 213 c.p.c. allows the judge to ex officio seek written information from a Public Authority regarding documents essential to a civil trial. Unlike the order of production (ordine di esibizione) under Art. 210 c.p.c., it applies only to public entities. The Cartabia Reform set a sixty-day deadline for the authority's response. The tool is subsidiary: parties must prove they could not obtain the data via FOIA requests or digital portals. AI assists in drafting the motion by justifying its necessity and formulating precise technical queries for the administration.

1.
Legal Framework and the Cartabia Reform Updates
Art. 213 c.p.c. empowers the judge to request written information (informazioni scritte) from a PA regarding official acts. With the implementation of the Cartabia Reform (Riforma Cartabia), the procedure gained temporal certainty: the second paragraph now mandates the PA to provide information or communicate a refusal within sixty days of the order. This deadline has an ordinary and directory nature, oriented toward trial efficiency. AI can be used to track these timelines and draft the section of the motion highlighting the authority's duty of promptness, ensuring the request aligns with the 2026 standards of procedural speed.
2.
Distinction between Order of Production and Request for Information
A common confusion involves the relationship between Art. 210 c.p.c. (order of production) and Art. 213 c.p.c. The distinction, reaffirmed by recent case law, lies in the recipient and the object. While Art. 210 targets parties or private third parties for specific documents, Art. 213 is reserved for the PA and concerns written information that may result from synthesizing data held in various registers. AI helps lawyers correctly qualify the motion, preventing dismissals due to an incorrect choice of evidentiary tool, especially when the requested proof is not a single document but a complex certification of administrative facts.
3.
Proving Subsidiarity and the Burden of Proof
Art. 213 c.p.c. is subsidiary in nature (sussidiario), as confirmed by the case law of the Court of Cassation (Corte di Cassazione) available through official sources. The judge will not grant the motion if the party could have obtained the information via administrative access (accesso amministrativo, Law 241/90) or generalized civic access (accesso civico generalizzato, FOIA). AI is invaluable for documenting failed attempts: by inputting timelines of refusals or 'silent rejections' from the PA, the generative model can structure a solid argument showing the judge the impossibility of independent acquisition. This step is vital to pass the admissibility test and prevent the motion from being deemed 'exploratory' or a substitute for the party's own burden of proof.
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.
Formulating Precise Technical Queries with AI
To prevent the judge from dismissing the motion for vagueness, queries directed to the PA must be specific. AI can assist in translating case facts into precise administrative questions, filtering out irrelevant information. For instance, in procurement or social security matters, AI can suggest the correct technical terminology for querying PA databases (such as INPS or Revenue Agency records). However, it is essential for the lawyer to verify that these queries do not demand technical evaluations or opinions, which are prohibited under Art. 213 c.p.c., but only the disclosure of facts resulting from the administration's records.
5.
Limits of Judicial Discretionary Power
The judge's power to trigger Art. 213 c.p.c. is discretionary. According to Cass. Civ. n. 26547/2024, a refusal cannot be appealed if logically reasoned. AI can be trained to analyze specific precedents from the relevant court to understand which justifications led to the granting of similar motions in the past. Drafting a request that mirrors the 'indispensability' criteria recognized by high courts significantly increases the chances of success. The lawyer must maintain critical oversight, ensuring the request does not appear to delegate investigations to the PA that should instead be handled by a Court-Appointed Expert (Consulenza Tecnica d'Ufficio, CTU).
6.
Liability and Verification of Generated Content
The use of AI in drafting legal documents in 2026 is governed by professional conduct rules and current legislation. Errors such as citing non-existent rulings can lead to sanctions for frivolous litigation (lite temeraria), as documented in official case law records. Therefore, every case law or regulatory reference produced by AI in an Art. 213 c.p.c. motion must be manually verified. Integration with professional tools like edit.legal ensures the database used for drafting is real and verified. edit.legal provides access to updated case law sources and drafting assistance based on real data, allowing for the creation of professional documents with precision, including a free trial without credit card requirements.

References: Art. 213 c.p.c.D.Lgs. 149/2022 (Riforma Cartabia)Legge 241/1990D.Lgs. 33/2013 (FOIA)Cass. Civ., Sez. 3, Ordinanza n. 26547 del 11/10/2024Cass. Civ., Sez. 3, Ordinanza n. 525 del 09/01/2025

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 3 November 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

Frequently asked questions

What happens if the PA does not respond within the 60-day deadline?

The 60-day deadline introduced by the Cartabia Reform aims to ensure the reasonable duration of the trial. If the authority remains inactive, the judge may nudge the entity or draw evidentiary inferences from the PA's omission, although the primary sanctions remain administrative and disciplinary for the responsible officials.

Can Art. 213 c.p.c. be used to request technical opinions?

No. The request must only concern facts and documents already held by the PA. If technical evaluations or investigations are needed, the correct tool is a Court-Appointed Expert (CTU). Case law consistently declares requests under Art. 213 inadmissible if they ask the PA to provide judgments or opinions.

Can the judge refuse to send the request to the PA?

Yes, the power is discretionary. The judge will dismiss the motion if it is deemed superfluous, if the facts can be proven otherwise, or if the party failed to demonstrate a prior attempt at ordinary administrative access. However, the reasoning for the dismissal must be adequate.