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.
N° 2509827
TA Grenoble · Dec 3, 2025
FranceEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In TA Grenoble No. 2509827, a person challenged a EUR 500 administrative fine imposed by the mayor of Saint-Cergues. The tribunal found the filing unclear because it had apparently been drafted with generative AI and identified fantasy judicial references in the argument. It rejected the application after the claimant failed to produce the challenged decision and the remaining grounds were manifestly unsupported.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Why it matters now
- French administrative tribunals are now documenting AI fabrications in pro-se filings; precedent is spreading across civil-law jurisdictions.
Why this matter is tracked
In TA Grenoble No. 2509827, a person challenged a EUR 500 administrative fine imposed by the mayor of Saint-Cergues. The tribunal found the filing unclear because it had apparently been drafted with generative AI and identified fantasy judicial references in the argument. It rejected the application after the claimant failed to produce the challenged decision and the remaining grounds were manifestly unsupported.
Operational lesson
French administrative tribunals are now documenting AI fabrications in pro-se filings; precedent is spreading across civil-law jurisdictions.
Record details
CourtTA Grenoble
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 3, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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 N° 2509827?
- In TA Grenoble No. 2509827, a person challenged a EUR 500 administrative fine imposed by the mayor of Saint-Cergues. The tribunal found the filing unclear because it had apparently been drafted with generative AI and identified fantasy judicial references in the argument. It rejected the application after the claimant failed to produce the challenged decision and the remaining grounds were manifestly unsupported.
- Why does N° 2509827 matter for legal AI risk?
- French administrative tribunals are now documenting AI fabrications in pro-se filings; precedent is spreading across civil-law jurisdictions.
- What does the public record establish about N° 2509827?
- 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 N° 2509827 summary?
- The recorded source is justice.pappers.fr. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.