Insights

Requesting Information from Public Administrations under Art. 213 CCP with AI

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

The mechanism for court-ordered requests for information from the Public Administration (PA) is a key element of Italian civil evidence, yet it is often underused or poorly drafted. In the 2026 regulatory landscape, artificial intelligence provides new opportunities to structure motions that withstand the judge's strict admissibility scrutiny.

In brief

A motion under Article 213 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (Codice di Procedura Civile or c.p.c.) allows the judge to request written information from the PA regarding acts or documents essential to the case. This is a discretionary power (potere ufficioso), not a duty, and is applicable only if the party proves they cannot obtain the data via administrative access (Law 241/90). In 2026, using AI models for drafting helps document relevance and subsidiarity while complying with the EU AI Act and recent case law.

1.
Discretionary Nature and Requirements of Art. 213 c.p.c.
Article 213 c.p.c. grants the judge the power to request written information from the Public Administration. It is vital to understand that this tool is 'officioso' (exercised by the court) and does not replace the parties' burden of proof under Art. 115 c.p.c. The judge exercises this option only when the information is deemed indispensable and cannot be directly acquired by counsel. In 2026, case law confirms that the court's order must be properly reasoned: therefore, a party's motion must be highly analytical to persuade the magistrate. It is not a coercive order but a request for institutional cooperation, where the PA provides existing data without performing new evaluative or expert tasks.
2.
Technical Distinction between Art. 213 and Exhibition Orders (Art. 210)
A common confusion lies in the difference between requesting information and an exhibition order under Art. 210 c.p.c. While exhibition targets a specific, identified document known to exist, Art. 213 involves broader information that may require the PA to conduct internal archive searches. Furthermore, exhibition is typically initiated by a party's motion, whereas the Art. 213 request is an inherent power of the judge that a party can only suggest. When drafting the motion, it is crucial to specify why Art. 213 is the preferred tool, for instance by highlighting that the necessary data resides within complex administrative information flows rather than a single, pre-identified physical or digital document.
3.
Subsidiarity and Administrative Access (Law 241/90)
The principle of subsidiarity is the primary hurdle for the motion's admissibility. Case law, consolidated by the Council of State Plenary sessions in 2020 and 2026 practices, requires the party to prove they previously attempted to obtain the documents via administrative access (Law 241/90) or the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). If the judge finds that the party remained inactive in seeking the documents out of court, they will reject the Art. 213 c.p.c. request, viewing it as an attempt to remedy defense negligence. Consequently, the motion must attach any received denials or prove the administration's silence to demonstrate that the court's power is the only remaining avenue for legal protection.
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.
Optimizing the Motion with AI Models
In 2026, the use of AI in legal drafting must follow the transparency criteria of the EU AI Act (Reg. UE 2024/1689). AI can be used to structure the motion, starting from a chronology of facts and failed access attempts. An advanced language model can help synthesize the relevance of the requested information to the subject matter, making the reasoning more compelling for the judge. However, it is imperative that the lawyer verifies every legal and case law reference (such as Cassazione No. 21251/2022) to avoid hallucinations common in generalist models like ChatGPT or Claude. Human intellectual contribution must remain predominant under current regulations available through official sources, ensuring the defense strategy is personalized and not merely standardized.
5.
Deadlines and the Cartabia Reform: The 60-Day Window
The Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree 149/2022) introduced certain timelines for the PA's response. Once the court order is issued, the judge sets a deadline not exceeding sixty days for the administration to transmit the requested information or communicate the reasons for denial. This deadline has become a benchmark for procedural efficiency in 2026. If the PA fails to respond, the judge may draw evidentiary inferences under Art. 116 c.p.c. or prompt intervention from a higher authority. In the motion, it is helpful to remind the judge of the possibility to set this explicit deadline not exceeding sixty days, facilitating the trial calendar management and preventing the case from remaining in an evidentiary limbo due to administrative inertia.
6.
Sanction Risks and Transparency in AI Usage
Case law evolution in 2025-2026, with emerging trends in lower courts and verifiable through official channels, highlights the risk of sanctions under Art. 96 c.p.c. for the improper use of AI tools. If an Art. 213 c.p.c. motion contains citations of non-existent judgments or distorted factual reconstructions generated automatically, the practitioner is liable for violating duties of loyalty and probity. Transparency is fundamental: disclosing the use of drafting assistance tools, while maintaining signature and content responsibility, is the recommended practice for safe operation. AI should serve to enhance the logic of the argument, not to replace research into official and certified sources. edit.legal supports professionals in drafting motions under Art. 213 c.p.c. by providing access to verified and updated sources. The platform facilitates the preparation of legal documents while reducing the risk of formal errors. You can explore edit.legal features through a free trial with no credit card required.

References: Articolo 213 Codice di Procedura CivileArticolo 210 Codice di Procedura CivileLegge 7 agosto 1990, n. 241D.Lgs. 10 ottobre 2022, n. 149 (Riforma Cartabia)Regolamento UE 2024/1689 (AI Act)Cass. Civ., Sez. VI, ordinanza n. 21251/2022

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 15 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

Frequently asked questions

Is the judge obliged to grant an Art. 213 c.p.c. motion?

No, the judge's power is purely discretionary. They evaluate the necessity and indispensability of the information. The rejection of the motion is usually not independently appealable but can be challenged on appeal if the reasoning is illogical or deficient.

What happens if the PA refuses to provide the information?

The PA may only refuse for legitimate reasons, such as state secrets or third-party privacy protection that outweighs the defense interest. In case of an unjustified refusal, the judge may draw unfavorable evidentiary inferences against the PA's position (if they are a party) or evaluate the behavior within the overall context of the evidence.

Can Art. 213 c.p.c. be used to obtain documents between private parties?

No, the scope of Art. 213 c.p.c. is strictly limited to the Public Administration. To obtain documents from private individuals or other parties in the proceedings, the correct tool is the exhibition order under Art. 210 c.p.c.