ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814
Rechtbank Noord-Nederland · Nov 19, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Rechtbank Noord-Nederland
- Record ID
- eclinlrbnne20254814-2025-11-19
- Observed outcome
- The court rejected the primary claim for annulment of the division but granted a subsidiary claim for payment of €30,000.00, plus interest.
- Known monetary consequence
- €30,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified that the plaintiff's counsel submitted fabricated and misrepresented case law, likely generated by ChatGPT, which failed to support the legal arguments. The court explicitly flagged these citations as unreliable and warned against the unverified use of AI tools in legal filings.
Fabricated: Case Law | Pleitnota verwees naar een door de advocaat/geëxposeerde Hoge Raad-arrest aangeduid als 'HR 19 december 2003' en ECLI:NL:HR:2003:AL8444 (NJ 2004/75); rechtbank constateert datumverschil (5-12-2003), ECLI niet terugvindbaar en voorgestelde rechtsregel ontbreekt. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Pleitnota noemde 'NJ 1996/273' aangeduid als arrest van 22 december 1995; rechtbank merkt op dat het gaat om een Arubaanse zaak van 8 december 1995, niet relevant voor verdelingskwesties en onjuist gepresenteerd. || Fabricated: Other | Rechtbank vermoedt dat meerdere vindplaatsen via ChatGPT of vergelijkbare zoekmachine zijn opgedoken en zonder controle in de processtukken zijn overgenomen.
Dutch courts are cross-checking ECLI numbers and flagging ChatGPT-sourced citations — verify every ECLI on rechtspraak.nl.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- €30,000
- Procedural posture
- Civil proceedings concerning the division of an estate and a claim for property valuation adjustment.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court explicitly mentions the use of ChatGPT-jurisprudence.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Use only approved research and drafting tools for legal work.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.