L. R., a journalist with Altreconomia, requested generalised civic access to Italy's National Implementation Plan (NIP) for the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, including its annexes and any possible updates. By decision of 4 November 2025, the Ministry of the Interior refused access on the grounds that disclosure of the NIP could jeopardise public security, public order and international relations, and that the NIP formed part of the preparation of general administrative, planning or programming measures, which are excluded from generalised civic access under Italian law. L.R. filed an appeal before the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, specifying his professional activity and the reasons for his civic access request and raising several objections against the refusal, requesting, in the alternative, at least partial access.

The court first recalled the applicable legal framework, namely Article 5(2) of Legislative Decree No. 33 of 14 March 2013, which grants anyone the right to access documents held by public administrations, with the aim of promoting widespread oversight of the performance of institutional functions and the use of public resources, as well as encouraging participation in public debate. The court clarified that Article 5-bis of the same Legislative Decree provides for certain limitations. In particular, to refuse generalized civic access under paragraphs 1 and 2, which protect public or private interests of legal significance, the administration must identify the specific “concrete prejudice” that disclosure would cause to those interests. By contrast, under paragraph 3 of Article 5-bis, access may be refused where the requested document falls within one of the categories of excluded acts, including those referred to in Article 24(1) of Law No. 241/1990.

Regarding the NIP, the court noted that, as emerges from the Common Implementation Plan drawn up by the European Commission on 12 June 2024, it is a document that is not only fundamental within the new common EU policy strategy on migration and asylum, but also complex, as it relates to ten different areas of implementation. It held that the document has a composite nature: descriptive, insofar as it requires an assessment of the current migration situation in Italy and its management; programmatic, insofar as it is aimed at identifying the legislative and organisational changes to be implemented in the near future for the purposes of implementing the Pact; and financial, since all of this must be carried out using the available resources.

The court further clarified that the NIP could not be considered an act relating to the formation of normative acts, general administrative acts, planning or programming measures. Consequently, the prohibition on generalized civic access provided for in Article 5-bis(3) of Legislative Decree No. 33/2013, insofar as it refers to Article 24(1) of Law No. 241/1990, and consequently Article 5(1)(a) of the Ministry of the Interior Decree of 16 March 2022, did not apply. Indeed, an act relating to the formation of such measures must be understood as a document that is strictly preparatory in nature (that is, drafts, preparatory assessments, proposals, or technical/political exchanges), rather than a document such as the one at issue, which, in broader terms and not in relation to any specific legislative or general act, is aimed, among other things, at establishing the administration's future interventions.

Moreover, the court found that the other grounds for refusal were inadequately reasoned. While it acknowledged that the NIP may contain elements relating to national security, public order, international relations or police activity, it also recognised that the NIP includes other types of information. These include, for example, the initial section in which each Member State is required to map the current situation, the legislative framework, administrative practices and other relevant elements, as well as the section providing for an assessment of domestic legislation in light of the requirements laid down in the EU asylum regulation. The court reiterated that generalised civic access undoubtedly constitutes a fundamental right grounded in the Constitution, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ECHR. Considering the strategic importance of the NIP for the future migration policies of the EU, in respect of which broad public scrutiny must be ensured, the court held that the contested refusal had to be annulled. In particular, the refusal was unlawful insofar as, in balancing the competing interests at stake, it failed to allow at least partial access to the NIP and its annexes, without providing any specific reasoning on that point. According to the court, the administration failed to identify the specific “concrete prejudice” that disclosure would cause to the protected interests, as required by law.

In conclusion, the court annulled the contested refusal decision and ordered the administration to disclose the NIP, its annexes, and any subsequent updates to the Plan within 30 days of notification of the judgment, without prejudice to any specific need for partial redaction of the data contained therein.