Difensore civico ti scrivo

difensore-civico-ti-scrivo

Produces a ready-to-send formal segnalazione to Italy's Difensore Civico per il Digitale (DCD) at AGID, under art. 17, comma 1-quater of the CAD (D.Lgs. 82/2005).

Scope and constraints

Funzione A only. This skill covers violations of the CAD and other digitalization norms — the DCD's main function. If the user describes an accessibility complaint (reclamo su dichiarazione di accessibilità, L. 4/2004 — Funzione B), redirect them: the correct channel is exclusively the link on the reported entity's own website, not AGID. Do not draft a Funzione B complaint through this skill.

Covered norms. In addition to the CAD, this skill covers D.Lgs. 36/2006 (open data and reuse) and EU regulations directly applicable in Italy — in particular Reg. (UE) 2023/138 (High Value Datasets — HVD), which requires publication of six dataset categories via machine-readable API; obligations have been enforceable since 9 June 2024.

One complaint per PA. If multiple administrations are involved, produce one segnalazione per administration.

The CAD is broad — references are a subset, not a closed list. Art. 17, co. 1-quater CAD lets anyone report "presunte violazioni del presente Codice e di ogni altra norma in materia di digitalizzazione ed innovazione della pubblica amministrazione". The CAD alone has dozens of articles (identità digitale, domicilio digitale, pagamenti, conservazione, accessibilità dei dati, riuso, ecc.), and the reportable perimeter extends to any digitalization norm. The categories in references/categorie-violazioni.md and the articles in references/normativa.md are the most common cases, not an exhaustive catalogue. If the user's problem is a genuine digitalization-norm violation that no listed category fits, do not force-fit it or reject it: draft the complaint anyway, citing the relevant CAD article (or other norm) directly. Verify the exact wording and Normattiva URL of any article not already in the reference file before quoting it.

Common failure modes

These are the most frequent reasons a segnalazione fails or is dismissed. Check each before drafting.

Inadmissibility — complaint is not processed at all (art. 4 co. 3 Regolamento DCD)

• Missing sender identity (full name and contact details): art. 4 co. 3 requires "dati identificativi del segnalante"; without them the complaint is inadmissible. Remedy: always collect Group A in full before drafting.
• Missing reply PEC/email in the complaint body: the DCD sends all communications to the address stated in the segnalazione (Regolamento art. 10). If the sender's PEC is not included in the complaint text, official responses may be lost or delivered without legal value. Remedy: always include the sender's PEC (preferred) or email explicitly in the sender block, even when submitting via PEC — the transmission address and the reply address must both appear in the document.
• Missing DPR 445/2000 declaration: the statutory self-certification is a formal requirement. Remedy: always include the standard block; never omit it even if the user objects.

Wrong channel — complaint reaches the wrong office

• Accessibility complaints (L. 4/2004, Funzione B) sent here are not processed by the DCD; the user loses time and may miss the correct channel. Remedy: redirect immediately (see Scope and constraints).

Premature complaint — DCD unlikely to proceed

• Art. 5 D.Lgs. 36/2006 (unanswered reuse request): the DCD expects evidence that the user already sent a formal reuse request to the PA and received no response or a refusal. Without this prior step the complaint will likely be archived as premature. Remedy: ask Group C before drafting; if no prior request exists, advise the user to send it first.
• Prior DCD segnalazione unresolved: if the user already filed for the same PA and received a protocol number but no outcome, the new complaint must reference that number explicitly; otherwise the DCD may treat it as a duplicate and archive it.

Weak evidence — complaint cannot be acted on

• Vague description without URLs, dates, or observable facts: the DCD cannot invite the PA to remedy what it cannot identify. Remedy: insist on at least one URL and one specific date in Group B; if the user cannot provide them, note the limitation explicitly in the complaint text.

Delivery failure — no legal proof of submission

• Sending via ordinary email (not PEC and not the AGID web form) produces no legal proof of delivery; the DCD may never acknowledge receipt. Remedy: Step 4 covers the two valid channels; always remind the user before they send.

Step 1 — Interview

Collect the required information before drafting. Ask in conversational turns — not all at once. Start with the first two groups; add the rest once you understand the case.

Group A — Sender identity (required for admissibility, art. 4 co. 3 Regolamento DCD)

• Full name
• Capacity: privato cittadino / rappresentante di associazione (name + role) / professionista (name + profession)
• Email or PEC address for replies

Group B — The problem

• Which PA? (name, and the URL of the page or service at issue)
• What happened? Be specific: what did the user observe, what did they try, when?

Group C — Prior requests (ask if categories E or F seem relevant)

• Has the user already sent a reuse request (art. 5 D.Lgs. 36/2006) or FOIA to this PA? If yes: date sent, delivery proof available?
• Was there a previous DCD segnalazione about this PA? If yes: date, protocol number.

Group D — Optional details

• Attachments to mention (files the user has: PEC receipts, screenshots, prior correspondence — list names only)
• Confidentiality: does the user want their identity withheld from the reported PA?

Step 2 — Identify the violation category

Read references/categorie-violazioni.md. Match the user's description to one or more of the categories listed there. Each category maps to specific articles and provides adaptable Italian legal language. Confirm the match with the user before drafting.

If the case spans multiple categories, include arguments for all of them in a single complaint.

If no category fits but the facts describe a real digitalization-norm violation, proceed anyway under art. 17, co. 1-quater (see Scope and constraints): identify the specific CAD article (or other norm) breached and build the legal argument around it directly.

Step 3 — Draft the complaint

Produce the complaint in Italian, formal administrative register. Pull exact article text and URLs from references/normativa.md. Use the adaptable language from references/categorie-violazioni.md for the legal-argument section.

Every complaint must include (admissibility elements, art. 4 co. 3 Regolamento DCD):

• Identifying data of the sender
• Exact identification of the reported entity
• Declaration of responsibility under DPR 445/2000 (standard template below)

---

Complaint structure

A: [email protected]
Oggetto: Segnalazione al Difensore Civico per il Digitale (art. 17, co. 1-quater CAD) –
         [brief violation description] – [PA name]

Body:

Spett.le Difensore Civico per il Digitale
Agenzia per l'Italia Digitale

[SENDER BLOCK]
Il/La sottoscritto/a [NOME], [QUALITÀ E ORGANIZZAZIONE], con la presente formula
segnalazione ai sensi dell'art. 17, comma 1-quater, del decreto legislativo 7 marzo 2005,
n. 82 (Codice dell'Amministrazione Digitale – CAD) per presunta violazione
[VIOLATION SUMMARY] da parte di [ENTE SEGNALATO].

[CONTEXT — 2–4 sentences: what the PA is, what service/page is concerned, why it matters]

[FACTS — specific, dated, verifiable: what the user observed, what they tried, what the
outcome was. Include URLs. Be concrete.]

[PRIOR REQUESTS — only if applicable: date of request, type, channel, deadline, outcome]

[LEGAL ARGUMENTS — drawn from references/categorie-violazioni.md for this category.
Cite each article with its Normattiva URL from references/normativa.md.]

[REQUESTS TO THE DCD]
Alla luce di quanto sopra, si chiede al Difensore Civico per il Digitale di:
1. valutare la presente segnalazione ai sensi dell'art. 17, co. 1-quater CAD;
2. ove ritenuta non manifestamente infondata, invitare [ENTE] a [SPECIFIC REMEDY];
3. comunicare gli esiti del procedimento al recapito sopra indicato;
4. assegnare un numero di protocollo per il seguito della procedura.

[CONFIDENTIALITY — only if requested]
Per motivate esigenze di riservatezza ai sensi dell'art. 4, co. 5, del Regolamento AgID
(D.T. n. 270/2022), chiedo che il mio nominativo non sia riportato nelle comunicazioni
verso il soggetto segnalato. Qualora ciò non fosse proceduralmente possibile, chiedo di
essere preventivamente informato/a prima dell'inoltro.

[ATTACHMENTS — only if any]
Si allegano: [list filenames].

[DPR 445/2000 DECLARATION — always include]
Il/La sottoscritto/a dichiara, ai sensi del D.P.R. 28 dicembre 2000, n. 445, di essere a
conoscenza delle sanzioni penali previste in caso di falsità in atti e dichiarazioni mendaci
e attesta che le informazioni fornite nella presente segnalazione sono veritiere.

Distinti saluti,

[NOME]
[QUALITÀ / ORGANIZZAZIONE]
[EMAIL / PEC]

Output format rules

The complaint is sent via PEC or web form to a PA. PEC clients are often basic and do not render Markdown. Apply these rules strictly:

• Plain text only. No Markdown: no **bold**, no ### headers, no - bullet lists with hyphens rendered as markup. Use plain prose and simple numbered lists (1. 2. 3.).

• No horizontal rules. Do not use --- or *** to separate sections. Leave a blank line between sections instead.

• Subject line: max 100 characters. Keep it to: "Segnalazione al Difensore Civico per il Digitale – [violation in 5–8 words] – [PA name]". Cut ruthlessly.

• Links as numbered footnotes. Never embed URLs in the text. Instead, write [1], [2] etc. at each citation point, and collect all URLs at the very end under a plain-text "Riferimenti" section, one per line:

  Riferimenti
  [1] https://www.normattiva.it/...
  [2] https://www.agid.gov.it/...
  

• Gender agreement. Match "Il sottoscritto / La sottoscritta" to the sender's gender.

• Italian accented characters. Always use proper Unicode accented letters: à, è, é, ì, ò, ù. Never substitute with apostrophe (a', e', i', o', u'). This applies throughout the entire complaint, including legal article citations.

Step 4 — Sending instructions

After the draft, tell the user:

• Recommended channel — PEC: send to [email protected]. Keep both the ricevuta di accettazione and ricevuta di avvenuta consegna as legally valid delivery proof. PEC is preferred over the form because it leaves a traceable paper trail in the sender's hands.
• Alternative — AGID web form: https://www.agid.gov.it/it/form/difensore-civico-digitale (requires SPID or CIE login). The form collects the same information but does not produce PEC-style delivery receipts; save any confirmation page or protocol number the form displays.
• The DCD has 90 days to conclude the procedure (Regolamento art. 8). No response within 90 days = automatic archiving (no further notification). The clock is suspended: up to 20 days if AgID consults internal structures; during 10–20 August and 25 December–1 January.
• One segnalazione per PA. If multiple PAs are involved, send separately.

What to expect after submission

Tell the user what happens next, to set realistic expectations:

1. Pre-istruttoria (art. 5 Regolamento): The DCD reviews admissibility. If the complaint is inadmissible or irricevibile (too vague, wrong channel, duplicate), it is archived without examination on the merits. The Regolamento does not guarantee a notification in this case; the only explicit "no notification" rule is the 90-day non-avvio in art. 8.

2. Istruttoria (art. 6): If the complaint passes, the DCD may request information from both the sender and the PA, with a 15-day peremptory deadline. Cooperate promptly.

3. Transmission to Direttore Generale (art. 18-bis CAD): If the DCD finds the complaint "non manifestamente infondata", it forwards the file to AgID's Direttore Generale, who can:

   • assign a peremptory deadline to the PA to comply;
   • report the violation to the PA's disciplinary office and performance evaluation body;
   • impose a fine of €10,000–€100,000 (art. 18-bis co. 5).

4. Realistic outcome: In most cases the PA receives a formal invitation to comply and does so within the assigned deadline. Monetary sanctions are the exception, not the rule. The procedure does not give the user an enforceable right to the data — it is an administrative oversight channel, not a court order.

5. No news = archived: If 90 days pass with no communication, the complaint was archived. The user can file a new complaint (Category F) if the violation persists.