Drafting Art. 213 CPC Requests via AI: A Guide to Subsidiary Evidence in Italian Law

1. 1.

   Understanding the subsidiary nature of the mechanism

   Article 213 c.p.c. is not a shortcut to bypass the burden of proof (onere probatorio) under Art. 2697 c.c. According to recent rulings, such as Cass. Civ., Sec. III, n. 26547/2024, the judge's power to request information ex officio is residual. The lawyer must demonstrate in the motion that the documents cannot be acquired directly. If the party can obtain the document independently, such as a traffic accident report accessible under Art. 11 of the Highway Code (Codice della Strada), the judge must reject the request, following the long-standing principle of Cass. n. 6101/2013. AI can assist in analyzing specific sectoral regulations to verify if direct access channels exist that would render an Art. 213 request inadmissible.

2. 2.

   Justifying indispensability with AI support

   Using LLMs like ChatGPT or Claude allows lawyers to structure the technical reasoning of the motion, focusing on the objective impossibility of retrieval. AI helps isolate facts that only the P.A. can certify, such as internal protocol chronologies or complex environmental data. It is crucial to prompt the algorithm to link the request directly to the subject matter of the case (thema decidendum), preventing the motion from being dismissed as exploratory. However, Ordinance n. 525/2025 reiterates that justification must be specific: simply claiming difficulty is insufficient. One must document failed extrajudicial attempts, such as formal documentary access or FOIA requests, steps that AI can help logically organize within the legal document.

3. 3.

   Drafting queries and the prohibition of evaluations

   When drafting the motion, queries must concern exclusively objective facts, not opinions. The Public Administration should not be asked to perform discretionary evaluations, but only to report data from its records. AI is highly effective at refining the language of these queries to ensure they are neutral and objective. A poorly formulated question asking for a judgment from the public body would inevitably lead to a rejection or an unusable response for the court's decision. The lawyer must retain control over AI-generated text, ensuring every question aims at verifying a historical fact that the administration is institutionally required to record or certify.

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.

   Managing the 60-day deadline of the Cartabia Reform

   The Cartabia Reform introduced a mandatory 60-day deadline in Art. 213, paragraph 2, c.p.c., within which the P.A. must transmit the requested info or state its reasons for refusal. This deadline is vital for the trial's timeline. AI can assist law firms in monitoring these deadlines and drafting reminders if the administration remains inactive. While silence does not constitute an admission of facts, it can be evaluated by the judge as evidentiary inference (argomento di prova) under Art. 116 c.p.c. Timing precision is therefore an integral part of the defense strategy that the lawyer must coordinate using the digital tools available to them.

5. 5.

   Professional liability and verification of hallucinations

   Supreme Court ruling n. 11431/2026 clarified that the lawyer is solely responsible for the document's content, even if drafted via AI. Gross errors or invented precedents (so-called hallucinations) are inexcusable. Regarding Art. 213 c.p.c., citing a non-existent judgment to justify urgency or a waiver of the subsidiary requirement can expose the professional to disciplinary sanctions or liability for frivolous litigation (lite temeraria). It is imperative to use AI as logical support while verifying every legal and case law reference on certified databases. The final document must reflect the reality of the facts and the party's actual inability to acquire evidence through other means.

6. 6.

   Subjective limits: Public economic entities and AI

   A point still debated in 2026 concerns whether Art. 213 c.p.c. applies to public economic entities (enti pubblici economici). The prevailing view tends to exclude them, suggesting that for such entities, one should use the order for production of evidence under Art. 210 c.p.c. addressed to third parties. AI can help correctly classify the legal nature of the target entity, preventing procedural errors that would lead to the motion's inadmissibility. Furthermore, an ordinance from the Court of Ferrara dated February 20, 2026, clarified that AI-generated texts lack documentary evidentiary value and serve only for building the logical structure of the defense argument. This distinction is vital for the correct and informed use of technology in court.

References: Articolo 213 c.p.c.Articolo 210 c.p.c.Articolo 116 c.p.c.Articolo 2697 c.c.Legge 241/1990Cass. Civ., Sez. III, n. 26547/2024Cass. Civ., n. 11431/2026Tribunale di Ferrara, ordinanza 20 febbraio 2026

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 5 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