I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA
Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny · Jun 23, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny
- Record ID
- i-fz-104-26-postanowienie-nsa-2026-06-23
- Observed outcome
- The court dismissed the appellant's appeal (zażalenie) and criticized the counsel's use of AI.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucination
- Misrepresentation Of Legal Authority
- Lack Of Professional Oversight
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- unspecified AI tools
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a lower administrative court's denial of a stay of execution.
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 identified the use of AI tools in the drafting of the brief.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.