AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesRvV X / IX
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

RvV X / IX

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen · Apr 7, 2026

BelgiumEditorial impact: highfake citationsbar referralimmigrationtrialBar Referral
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Council for Alien Law Litigation referred counsel to the Bar after determining that a translated exhibit submitted by the applicant was misleading and apparently generated using artificial intelligence. The court found that the document had been altered to remove the signatory's official function, constituting a breach of professional conduct before the tribunal.

Why the court cared
The Council determined that the submission of an altered translation of a transfer decision, which omitted the signatory's official function, was a misleading act. The court explicitly linked the creation of this document to the use of artificial intelligence and deemed the conduct sufficient to warrant a referral to the Bar.
Why it matters now
Never submit AI-altered documentary exhibits; courts treat modified translations as misleading the tribunal.

Why this matter is tracked

In the case RvV X / IX, the Council for Alien Law Litigation (Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen) addressed a transfer decision under the Dublin Regulation. During proceedings, counsel for the applicant submitted a translated copy of a transfer decision (Annexe 26quater) that had been altered to omit the signatory's official function. The Council identified this document as having been produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and characterized the submission as misleading to the tribunal. Consequently, the Council referred the matter to the Bar for disciplinary review. The court's decision focused on the applicant's transfer to Croatia, ultimately upholding the transfer while noting the procedural misconduct regarding the falsified exhibit.

Operational lesson

Never submit AI-altered documentary exhibits; courts treat modified translations as misleading the tribunal.

Record details

CourtRaad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateApr 7, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court upheld the transfer decision and referred the applicant's counsel to the Bar for disciplinary action due to the submission of misleading, AI-generated evidence.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionReferral to the Bar for disciplinary review.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court identified the document as apparently produced with the help of AI.

Procedural posture

The matter was heard by the Council for Alien Law Litigation on March 9, 2026, following an appeal against a transfer decision. The court issued a final judgment on April 7, 2026.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Counsel attached a self-made translated copy of the transfer decision (Annexe 26quater) that omitted the signatory's official function; the Council described the document as apparently produced with the help of artificial intelligence and misleading.

Questions this record answers

What happened in RvV X / IX?
The Council for Alien Law Litigation referred counsel to the Bar after determining that a translated exhibit submitted by the applicant was misleading and apparently generated using artificial intelligence. The court found that the document had been altered to remove the signatory's official function, constituting a breach of professional conduct before the tribunal.
Why does RvV X / IX matter for legal AI risk?
Never submit AI-altered documentary exhibits; courts treat modified translations as misleading the tribunal.
What does the public record establish about RvV X / IX?
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 RvV X / IX 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.

UK and R (Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentUpper Tribunal · Nov 17, 2025fake citations + bar referral · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Girija Kadlaskar v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesD. Nebraska · Aug 6, 2026fake citations + immigration · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)FJL v TGOGauteng Division, Johannesburg · Jul 31, 2026fake citations + bar referral · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Catarina Almeida Porfirio v. Homeland Security, et al.D. D.C. · Jul 23, 2026fake citations + immigration · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)N°0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014TJ Parana · Jul 22, 2026fake citations + bar referral · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025T.S.X. Galicia · Jul 7, 2026fake citations + bar referral · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)