RVVB-2526-0701 (RvVb, 16-04-2026)
RvVb · Apr 16, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- RvVb
- Record ID
- rvvb-2526-0701-rvvb-16-04-2026-2026-04-16
- Observed outcome
- The appeal was rejected, and the litigants were ordered to pay 400 euros in court costs.
- Known monetary consequence
- €400
Why this matter warrants attention
The RvVb rejected the appeal, finding it inadmissible due to the litigants' failure to demonstrate personal interest and their reliance on fabricated legal norms and case law. The court criticized the petition's poor quality, noting it likely involved generative AI, and ordered the litigants to pay 400 euros in court costs.
The court reasoned that arguments based on non-existent or incorrect regulations and jurisprudence cannot lead to the annulment of a decision. It further held that the petition's poor quality, likely due to generative AI, constituted a disloyal procedural attitude that impeded the judicial process.
This case illustrates the judicial response to the use of AI-generated hallucinations in legal filings. It highlights that courts may explicitly identify and penalize the use of fabricated authorities, viewing them as a breach of procedural loyalty that undermines the integrity of the litigation process.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (implied)
- Known monetary consequence
- €400
- Procedural posture
- The case was heard by the RvVb under a 'short debates' procedure, resulting in a final judgment on the merits of the appeal against an administrative decision.
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 noted the petition was drafted with potential use of generative AI.
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
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- 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.