Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Case 2025/RK/12
CA Antwerp · Dec 25, 2025
BelgiumEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In case 2025/RK/12, the Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the appeal was unfounded after a completed public sale left the requested relief without useful object. It endorsed the first judge’s criticism of arguments generated with a generative-AI chatbot as incoherent and irrelevant, and noted that those arguments were purportedly supported by non-existent case law and invented legal sources.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Antwerp, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why this matter is tracked
In case 2025/RK/12, the Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the appeal was unfounded after a completed public sale left the requested relief without useful object. It endorsed the first judge’s criticism of arguments generated with a generative-AI chatbot as incoherent and irrelevant, and noted that those arguments were purportedly supported by non-existent case law and invented legal sources.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Antwerp, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Record details
CourtCA Antwerp
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 25, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeMonetary Sanction
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Monetary Sanction
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Case 2025/RK/12?
- In case 2025/RK/12, the Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the appeal was unfounded after a completed public sale left the requested relief without useful object. It endorsed the first judge’s criticism of arguments generated with a generative-AI chatbot as incoherent and irrelevant, and noted that those arguments were purportedly supported by non-existent case law and invented legal sources.
- Why does Case 2025/RK/12 matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Antwerp, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
- What does the public record establish about Case 2025/RK/12?
- 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 Case 2025/RK/12 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.