Court Request for Information from the Public Administration under Art. 213 c.p.c.

1. 1.

   Verification of the subsidiary nature of the power

   The information request under Art. 213 c.p.c. is not an unconditional right of the party, but a judicial power conditioned by the principle of subsidiarity. Before invoking this power, counsel must prove they have diligently attempted ordinary channels, such as administrative access under Law 241/90 or general civic access (FOIA). Due to increased database interoperability, the burden of proving objective inability to retrieve data independently has become stricter. If data is available via the Piattaforma Digitale Nazionale Dati (PDND - National Public Data Platform), the court may deny the motion. Therefore, the request must be supported by evidence of the PA refusal or silence to justify judicial intervention.

2. 2.

   Distinction between Art. 213 and Order to Produce (Art. 210)

   A key distinction lies in the object and the recipient of Art. 213 versus Art. 210 c.p.c. While the order to produce (Art. 210) targets parties or third parties to obtain existing physical documents, the request for information (Art. 213) is strictly for the Public Administration. The PA is not required to deliver a full physical file but may instead provide a written summary or certification of facts found in its records. This makes Art. 213 more flexible yet narrower: it cannot be used to force the administration to conduct new investigative or evaluative activities, as it is limited to facts already recorded in its official archives.

3. 3.

   The requirement of specificity and indispensability

   To avoid the request being labeled as a fishing expedition (esplorativa), counsel must precisely isolate the facts to be verified. Recent jurisprudence reiterates that Art. 213 c.p.c. cannot compensate for a party's failure to gather evidence they could have obtained timely. Indispensability is the core parameter: the requested data must be decisive for the case's resolution. A generic request for all documentation related to a file will likely be rejected. Instead, one must demonstrate the causal link between the information held by the PA and the legal facts (constitutive, impeding, or modifying) at issue, explaining why that specific data cannot be replaced by other evidence.

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.

   The Court's duty to provide reasoning (Recent Trends)

   Recent Supreme Court rulings have marked a procedural turning point. Although the judge's power remains discretionary, an enhanced duty to provide reasoning arises if the magistrate rejects a well-documented motion from a party. Specifically, if counsel provides evidence of a denied administrative access request, the judge cannot issue a boilerplate rejection of the Art. 213 c.p.c. motion. This trend, as confirmed by official case law, aims to ensure effective judicial protection, preventing citizens from being caught in an information deadlock between PA inertia and judicial refusal.

5. 5.

   Deadlines and methods for PA response

   Once the order is issued, the administration has a duty of institutional cooperation under the second paragraph of Art. 213 c.p.c. The deadline for the response is sixty days from the communication of the order. It is crucial to monitor this deadline: in case of inertia, the judge can nudge the office or evaluate the PA conduct under Art. 116 c.p.c. regarding inferences of proof. The administration's response is filed in the court records and serves as documentary evidence. Counsel should check for completeness: if the PA provides a partial response, an integration can be requested, strictly within the scope of the original facts and without altering the initial evidentiary query.

6. 6.

   Drafting the motion with technological support

   The motion is typically filed within the deadlines for evidentiary briefs (integrative briefs under Art. 171-ter c.p.c.). Using legal AI models allows for structuring the document by immediately highlighting admissibility requirements: identifying the specific PA, the subject of the queries, and proof of out-of-court access attempts. Accurate technical drafting should formulate queries clearly, enabling the judge to transpose them directly into the request order. This approach reduces court clerk processing times and increases the likelihood of approval, preventing the judge from having to independently re-draft the evidentiary request based on wordy or unclear defensive pleadings.

References: Articolo 213 c.p.c.Articolo 210 c.p.c.Legge 241/1990

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 27 October 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