Last 5th March the judges of the 6th Section of the State Council stated the following considerations. In order to support this thesis, they took inspiration from the Italian statutes, among which it should be mentioned Section 22, letter d) law no. 241/1990, that states that an “administrative document” is constituted by “any graphic, photocinematografic, electromagnetic or any other species of the content of documents, including internal or not related to a specific procedure, held by a public administration and activities relating to the public interest, regardless of the public or private nature of their substantive law.” The Section 24, paragraph 7, of the same law provides that it is mandatory to grant the applicants access to 'must still be afforded to applicants for access to administrative documents, knowledge of which is necessary to cure or to defend their legal interests. " The law adds that in case that the documents contain sensitive and judicial data, the access is allowed only if it is strictly necessary and, in the presence of legal situations of equal rank, in case of data suitable to disclose health status and sex life.

The judges of Palazzo Spada have stated that, on this occasion, both standards were violated. Appellants challenged, specifically, the illegitimacy of an access to the contents of a private correspondence, because the e-mail would have been sent to the President's personal and institutional address (for his exclusive access) and it would have been characterized by a confidential nature. A doubt was put on the nature of the administrative document which may be accessed: this kind of documents weren’t documents concerning the activities of public interest. In relation to the nature of the document, the administrative courts of second instance clarify that the content of the e-mail can not be considered as private correspondence since the President has provided for notify the administration offices of the existence of such information. In this way the President has made public the document.

It’s no coincidence that the private party has become aware of the existence of e-mail because the head of the procedure, in the act of denial of access, referred to “Annex 5”. Therefore it was a document now held by the authorities. The appellant’s thesis would have been right if the President had kept "privately" the correspondence received, by giving a not relevant value to the institutional activity of the authority. Ultimately, it should be considered that the judges conclude: "the particularity of the individual case emphasize the value of the document, which resides in the e-mail sent to the President of the Institute. As regards the need to protect the confidentiality of the author of the email, the party appealed demonstrated that the knowledge of its contents and the sender's name is necessary for both the defense in the proceedings related to the transfer of task and, above all, to be able to take legal action for the protection of his honor and his professional reputation."