Roll Q/25/0025
Enterprise Court Ghent · Dec 15, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Enterprise Court Ghent
- Record ID
- roll-q250025-2025-12-15
- Observed outcome
- The court rejected the request to reopen debates and scheduled a hearing to address potential sanctions under Article 780bis of the Judicial Code regarding the use of AI.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified that the debtor submitted fabricated case law in a request to reopen debates, likely generated by unverified AI use. Consequently, the court rejected the request to reopen on the merits but ordered a specific hearing to address potential sanctions under Article 780bis of the Judicial Code for the irresponsible use of AI.
Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 25 november 2021, AR C.20.0193.F'; court verified via Google AI-mode and found the cited cassation decision/rolnummer does not exist and the provided ECLI was incorrect. || Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 14 juni 2021, P.20.0810.N'; court checked and concluded no such Cassation judgment or ECLI exists — the reference is fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'GwH nr. 104/2017 van 6 juli 2017' as a Constitutional Court decision relevant to equality; court found no such decision at that date/number and that the cited ruling does not support the asserted proposition.
Courts are using AI-assisted search to detect your AI hallucinations; a dedicated sanctions hearing is now the default response.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court issued a judgment on December 15, 2025, rejecting a request to reopen debates while simultaneously ordering a new hearing to address potential sanctions for the use of fabricated citations.
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 Google's AI-mode to verify the citations.
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.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.
- Set a written rule for permissible AI use and mandatory verification.