I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA
Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny · Jun 23, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny dismissed the appellant's motion for a stay of execution, finding the arguments unsubstantiated. The court explicitly identified that the appellant's counsel used AI to generate fabricated case law citations, which the court characterized as a failure of professional responsibility and a lack of due diligence.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof for a stay of execution under art. 61 § 3 p.p.s.a. regarding financial hardship. Regarding the AI usage, the court reasoned that the counsel's reliance on fabricated case law demonstrated a lack of professional diligence and ethical failure, as the cited rulings did not exist in the form presented or address the relevant legal issues.
- Why it matters now
- This case serves as a clear judicial warning against the uncritical use of AI in legal filings. It highlights the risk of 'hallucinated' case law and reinforces that professional counsel remains strictly liable for the accuracy of all submissions, regardless of the tools used to draft them.
Why this matter is tracked
In an administrative appeal, the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (NSA) dismissed a complaint regarding the denial of a stay of execution. The court found the appellant's arguments regarding financial hardship to be generic and unsupported by evidence. Crucially, the court identified that the appellant's professional representative submitted a brief containing multiple AI-generated hallucinations. The representative cited three specific NSA rulings (II FZ 230/17, II GZ 452/18, and I GZ 164/22) to support their position, but the court determined these citations were fabricated, as the actual rulings concerned unrelated procedural issues and were issued on different dates. The court criticized the uncritical use of AI by professional counsel as a failure to meet professional standards.
This case serves as a clear judicial warning against the uncritical use of AI in legal filings. It highlights the risk of 'hallucinated' case law and reinforces that professional counsel remains strictly liable for the accuracy of all submissions, regardless of the tools used to draft them.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court identified the use of AI tools in the drafting of the brief.
Appellate review of a lower administrative court's denial of a stay of execution.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Pełnomocnik wskazał I GZ 164/22 jako dowód potępiający nadmierny formalizm i obowiązek uwzględniania akt; NSA stwierdził, że przytoczone postanowienie nie odnosiło się do wstrzymania wykonania ani nie zawierało przedstawionych tez.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Pełnomocnik powołał się na postanowienie II FZ 230/17 jako potwierdzające obowiązek uwzględniania materiałów z akt administracyjnych przy wniosku o wstrzymanie wykonania; NSA stwierdził, że data i przypisane stanowisko są błędne i postanowienie nie dotyczyło tej problematyki.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Pełnomocnik cytował II GZ 452/18 rzekomo potwierdzające pogląd o wstępnym charakterze oceny uprawdopodobnienia; NSA ustalił, że przytoczona treść i data są niezgodne z realnym uzasadnieniem tego postanowienia.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA?
- The Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny dismissed the appellant's motion for a stay of execution, finding the arguments unsubstantiated. The court explicitly identified that the appellant's counsel used AI to generate fabricated case law citations, which the court characterized as a failure of professional responsibility and a lack of due diligence.
- Why does I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA matter for legal AI risk?
- This case serves as a clear judicial warning against the uncritical use of AI in legal filings. It highlights the risk of 'hallucinated' case law and reinforces that professional counsel remains strictly liable for the accuracy of all submissions, regardless of the tools used to draft them.
- What does the public record establish about I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA 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.