I OSK 935/26
NSA · Aug 27, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The appeal attributed the principle of two-instance administrative proceedings to Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, although Article 35 concerns statutory deadlines for resolving administrative matters; the principle is provided by Article 15. Outcome: The NSA dismissed the cassation appeal and criticized the professional lawyer's unverified AI-generated arguments as gross negligence; no separate sanction was imposed.. The NSA identified several apparently AI-generated errors in the cassation appeal: Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure was cited as establishing the two-instance principle instead of governing decision deadlines; Article 87 of that Code was wrongly described as concerning representation after a party's death; Article 12 of the Civil Code was falsely attributed a principle concerning respect for deceased persons and succession; and the appeal invoked a nonexistent 17 June 2004 statute on social-assistance proceedings. The court held that these were not merely drafting errors, regarded the lawyer's failure to verify the AI-generated content as gross negligence, and dismissed the appeal on the merits because it lacked valid grounds.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records The NSA dismissed the cassation appeal and criticized the professional lawyer's unverified AI-generated arguments as gross negligence; no separate sanction was imposed.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with The NSA dismissed the cassation appeal and criticized the professional lawyer's unverified AI-generated arguments as gross negligence; no separate sanction was imposed. in NSA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The appeal attributed the principle of two-instance administrative proceedings to Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, although Article 35 concerns statutory deadlines for resolving administrative matters; the principle is provided by Article 15. Outcome: The NSA dismissed the cassation appeal and criticized the professional lawyer's unverified AI-generated arguments as gross negligence; no separate sanction was imposed.. The NSA identified several apparently AI-generated errors in the cassation appeal: Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure was cited as establishing the two-instance principle instead of governing decision deadlines; Article 87 of that Code was wrongly described as concerning representation after a party's death; Article 12 of the Civil Code was falsely attributed a principle concerning respect for deceased persons and succession; and the appeal invoked a nonexistent 17 June 2004 statute on social-assistance proceedings. The court held that these were not merely drafting errors, regarded the lawyer's failure to verify the AI-generated content as gross negligence, and dismissed the appeal on the merits because it lacked valid grounds.
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with The NSA dismissed the cassation appeal and criticized the professional lawyer's unverified AI-generated arguments as gross negligence; no separate sanction was imposed. in NSA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The NSA dismissed the cassation appeal and criticized the professional lawyer's unverified AI-generated arguments as gross negligence; no separate sanction was imposed.
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.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The appeal attributed the principle of two-instance administrative proceedings to Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, although Article 35 concerns statutory deadlines for resolving administrative matters; the principle is provided by Article 15.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The appeal claimed that Article 87 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure permitted representation by an appointed attorney despite the party's death. Article 87 has no paragraphs and concerns delegation of evidentiary proceedings by a collegiate administrative body.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The appeal invoked Article 12 of the Civil Code as establishing a fundamental principle of respect for a deceased person's rights and legal succession. The NSA noted that Article 12 instead concerns the lack of capacity to perform legal acts of young or fully incapacitated persons.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | The appeal referred to an alleged 17 June 2004 Act on proceedings concerning social assistance, which the NSA stated does not exist in the Polish legal system.
- Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | The appeal asserted that the first-instance court had violated the two-instance principle by citing Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, and used that erroneous citation as part of its cassation arguments. The NSA treated the claims as unsupported and outside the properly formulated grounds of cassation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in I OSK 935/26?
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The appeal attributed the principle of two-instance administrative proceedings to Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, although Article 35 concerns statutory deadlines for resolving administrative matters; the principle is provided by Article 15. Outcome: The NSA dismissed the cassation appeal and criticized the professional lawyer's unverified AI-generated arguments as gross negligence; no separate sanction was imposed.. The NSA identified several apparently AI-generated errors in the cassation appeal: Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure was cited as establishing the two-instance principle instead of governing decision deadlines; Article 87 of that Code was wrongly described as concerning representation after a party's death; Article 12 of the Civil Code was falsely attributed a principle concerning respect for deceased persons and succession; and the appeal invoked a nonexistent 17 June 2004 statute on social-assistance proceedings. The court held that these were not merely drafting errors, regarded the lawyer's failure to verify the AI-generated content as gross negligence, and dismissed the appeal on the merits because it lacked valid grounds.
- Why does I OSK 935/26 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with The NSA dismissed the cassation appeal and criticized the professional lawyer's unverified AI-generated arguments as gross negligence; no separate sanction was imposed. in NSA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about I OSK 935/26?
- 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 OSK 935/26 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.