Which source supports this 12 Os 124/25i summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

HomeCases12 Os 124/25i

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

12 Os 124/25i

OG · Nov 3, 2025

Austria Editorial impact: low fake citations misrepresented authority criminal trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Austrian Supreme Court identified that the defendant's counsel submitted a filing containing numerous fabricated docket numbers and misrepresented legal authorities. The court formally criticized this conduct for failing to meet the required standard of argumentation for a high court, though it did not impose a specific professional sanction in this decision.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Numerous cited decisions contained incorrect Prüfzeichen (wrong docket numbers) and were relied on by the complaint. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 13 Os 15/17f was cited for the concept of 'Kuriertätern', but the court found the cited decision did not contain that asserted content. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 13 Os 99/15f was cited regarding 'Alias Namen' of telephone calls, but the court found the decision did not support that assertion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 13 Os 81/07x was cited for a so-called 'Verschleifungsverbot', which the court determined the decision did not establish as claimed. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 14 Os 11/09p was cited for an 'umfassendes Geständnis' and the 'präventive Wirkung der Ersthaftierung', but the court found those content-attributions inaccurate.
Why it matters now: Multiple wrong docket numbers in one brief signals AI use; require a second-reader cite check before any appellate filing.

Why this matter is tracked

In a criminal proceeding before the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), the court dismissed a fundamental rights complaint filed by a defendant. The court explicitly noted that the complaint contained a high frequency of fabricated case law citations, including incorrect docket numbers (Prüfzeichen) and misrepresentations of the content of cited decisions. The court stated that these errors caused the filing to fall below the standard of argumentation expected of a high court. The court proceeded to address the merits of the complaint where possible, ultimately finding no violation of the defendant's fundamental right to personal liberty and upholding the detention order based on the risk of reoffending.

Operational lesson

Multiple wrong docket numbers in one brief signals AI use; require a second-reader cite check before any appellate filing.

Record details

CourtOG

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateNov 3, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeThe fundamental rights complaint was dismissed, and the detention order was upheld.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court identified a pattern of errors characteristic of AI-generated hallucinations.

Procedural posture

Fundamental rights complaint (Grundrechtsbeschwerde) against a detention order issued by the Higher Regional Court of Vienna.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Numerous cited decisions contained incorrect Prüfzeichen (wrong docket numbers) and were relied on by the complaint.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 13 Os 15/17f was cited for the concept of 'Kuriertätern', but the court found the cited decision did not contain that asserted content.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 13 Os 99/15f was cited regarding 'Alias Namen' of telephone calls, but the court found the decision did not support that assertion.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 13 Os 81/07x was cited for a so-called 'Verschleifungsverbot', which the court determined the decision did not establish as claimed.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 14 Os 11/09p was cited for an 'umfassendes Geständnis' and the 'präventive Wirkung der Ersthaftierung', but the court found those content-attributions inaccurate.

Questions this record answers

What happened in 12 Os 124/25i?: The Austrian Supreme Court identified that the defendant's counsel submitted a filing containing numerous fabricated docket numbers and misrepresented legal authorities. The court formally criticized this conduct for failing to meet the required standard of argumentation for a high court, though it did not impose a specific professional sanction in this decision.
Why does 12 Os 124/25i matter for legal AI risk?: Multiple wrong docket numbers in one brief signals AI use; require a second-reader cite check before any appellate filing.
What does the public record establish about 12 Os 124/25i?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this 12 Os 124/25i summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

United States of America v. SmithN.D. Illinois · Aug 7, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Nº 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000TJ San Paulo · Mar 10, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)United States v. Michael Shane DeBaere (2)W.D. Virginia · Jan 23, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Sentencia 000126/2025TSJ Gran Canaria · Dec 31, 2025fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Rivard v. Dept. of CorrectionsVermont SC · Dec 10, 2025fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Fiscalía General de la Nación v. Luis Alberto Contreras FandinoeTribunal Superior de Bogotá · Dec 2, 2025fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open OG profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology