{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-26T09:07:23.240Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"constitutional-court","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-czech-constitutional-court-fines-lawyer-for-complaint-citing-non-existent-rulings-drafted-with-ai-tool","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"I.ÚS 3004/25 ze dne 1. 12. 2025; jako povinnému se ukládá pořádková pokuta ve výši 25 000 Kč; Pokutu uložil pouze ve čtvrtině zákonného rozpětí, neboť se povinný hrubého ztížení postupu řízení před Ústavním soudem dopustil poprvé a vadu podání lze ještě odstranit.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 1 December 2025 the presiding judge of a Constitutional Court chamber fined the lawyer 25,000 crowns for grossly obstructing proceedings, at a quarter of the statutory range because it was a first failing and the defect could still be remedied.","causal_attribution":"The fine responded to the filing; the order attributes the defects to the lawyer's failure to verify presumed AI output."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"V ústavní stížnosti argumentoval celkem 12 rozhodnutími Ústavního soudu a Evropského soudu pro lidská práva. Po pečlivém prostudování ústavní stížnosti Ústavní soud zjistil, že podstatná část z těchto rozhodnutí vůbec neexistuje a část je povinným hrubě dezinterpretována.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint argued from 12 decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, a substantial part of which did not exist and part of which were grossly misinterpreted.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's own verification."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"To vede Ústavní soud k domněnce, že povinný generoval podání pomocí některého z modelů umělé inteligence, poté však neověřil existenci citovaných rozhodnutí a správnost argumentace, resp. citace.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found signs of AI use in the complaint and presumed that the lawyer had generated it with an AI model and then failed to verify the citations and argument.","causal_attribution":"The order records the court's presumption of AI generation; the lawyer's confirmation is a separate claim (c4)."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Že opravdu použil při sepisování stížnosti umělou inteligenci, potvrdil INFO.CZ samotný advokát, který nad celou situací vyjádřil lítost.; Přiznává, že jeho chybou bylo, že výstup nedostatečně kontroloval a spolehl se na to, že uvedená judikatura odpovídá.; placený profesionální model AI, který nabízí některá z velkých společností provozujících komplexní právní informační systémy","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The lawyer confirmed to INFO.CZ that AI was used to write the complaint, said the output was not checked enough, and described the tool as a paid professional AI model from a large legal information system provider.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer attributes the false citations to the AI tool's output that was not checked."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Stěžovateli, prostřednictvím jeho právního zástupce, souběžně Ústavní soud zasílá výzvu k odstranění vad ústavní stížnosti, aby stěžovatel v důsledku postupu svého právního zástupce neutrpěl procesní újmu.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I.ÚS 3004/25 ze dne 30. 1. 2026; Ústavní stížnost se odmítá.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court invited the client to remedy the complaint so that the client would suffer no procedural harm, and later rejected the complaint as manifestly unfounded on 30 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"No source connects the rejection to the AI-generated citations."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Podle zdrojů INFO.CZ se kontrolní rada ČAK tímto konkrétním případem již zabývá. A to přestože se advokát soudu omluvil, pokutu zaplatil a klienta se jeho selhání nedotkne, neboť od ÚS dostal prostor na nápravu.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Ústavní soud ocenil následný přístup advokáta, který pokutu obratem uhradil a zaslal omluvu.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The lawyer apologised and paid the fine, and the Czech Bar Association's supervisory board was reported to be examining the case.","causal_attribution":"Consequence of the fine; the bar examination rests on INFO.CZ's unnamed sources."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pokud jde o využití AI pro přípravu podání bez kontroly zdrojů, může se skutečně jednat o kárné provinění advokáta; Ve svých důsledcích by to mohlo vést k postihování advokáta obecně za podání, které soud vyhodnotí jako nekvalitní nebo s nesprávně aplikovanou judikaturou","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Czech Bar Association's president said using AI for a filing without checking sources may be a disciplinary offence, while the bar expressed reservations about courts fining lawyers for filings they judge to be of poor quality.","causal_attribution":"Context and a qualification of the sanction, not a causal claim."}],"effects":[{"label":"fined 25,000 crowns by the Constitutional Court over non-existent and misinterpreted rulings in an AI-drafted complaint","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"case reported to be under examination by the bar association's supervisory board","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_1","kind":"court_decision","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Order dated 1 December 2025 in the NALUS database; the client and lawyer are named in the order and are not reproduced here.","independence_group":"czech-constitutional-court-order-i-us-3004-25-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_2","kind":"court_decision","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Resolution dated 30 January 2026 in the NALUS database.","independence_group":"czech-constitutional-court-resolution-i-us-3004-25-jan-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.info.cz/zpravodajstvi-a-komentare/ustavni-soud-pokuta-advokat-umela-inteligence-ai","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). INFO.CZ broke the story and interviewed the fined lawyer; later reports relay its interview.","independence_group":"info-cz-lawyer-interview-dec-2025"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.info.cz/zpravodajstvi-a-komentare/pokuta-advokat-ai-justice-cak-vyhrady","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Follow-up article with statements of the Czech Bar Association president and the presidents of the two top courts.","independence_group":"info-cz-bar-reaction-dec-2025"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://advokatnidenik.cz/2025/12/12/generativni-ai-prinesla-k-soudum-take-halucinace-ai-v-pravnich-podanich/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Bar Association journal article credited to the ČTK news agency.","independence_group":"ctk-advokatni-denik-dec-2025"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The name of the AI tool and its provider; the lawyer declined to name it.","The date the complaint was filed (INFO.CZ says it reached the court in October 2025).","The outcome of the Czech Bar Association supervisory board's examination, if any."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint was filed with, and the fine imposed by, the Czech Constitutional Court; the reports describe the lawyer as practising in Prague. Residence is not recorded as a country of the affected person.","court_countries":["CZ"],"event_countries":["CZ"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse consequence of AI use: the Constitutional Court's order fines a lawyer for a complaint whose non-existent citations it presumes were generated with an AI model, and the lawyer confirmed using a paid legal AI tool without checking its output.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Constitutional Court's order finds that a substantial part of the 12 decisions cited in the complaint did not exist, identifies signs of AI-generated text, and presumes the lawyer generated the filing with an AI model without verifying it; the lawyer confirmed to INFO.CZ that an AI tool, a paid professional model from a legal information system provider, was used and that its output was not checked enough. The tool's output reached the lawyer and went into the complaint (communicated_with), and the court read those invented authorities and fined the lawyer for them (informed_decision_about). The provider is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Czech Constitutional Court fines a lawyer 25,000 crowns over a complaint citing non-existent rulings; the lawyer says a paid legal AI tool drafted it","summary":"On 1 December 2025 the presiding judge of a chamber of the Czech Constitutional Court fined a Prague lawyer 25,000 crowns (a quarter of the statutory maximum) for grossly obstructing proceedings. The lawyer had filed a constitutional complaint, for a client refused a temporary residence permit, that argued from 12 decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights; the court found that a substantial part of them did not exist and part were grossly misinterpreted. The order says the complaint showed signs of generative AI and that the court presumed the lawyer had generated it with an AI model and then failed to verify the citations. The lawyer confirmed to INFO.CZ that an AI tool was used, described it as a paid professional model from a legal information system provider, said the output was not checked enough, and expressed regret. The court invited the client to correct the complaint so that the client would suffer no procedural harm; the complaint was later rejected as manifestly unfounded on 30 January 2026. INFO.CZ reported on 10 December 2025 that the lawyer had apologised and paid the fine and that the Czech Bar Association's supervisory board was examining the case.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-12-03","aiSystem":"A paid professional AI model offered by a legal information system provider, used to draft a constitutional complaint (provider not named; the court inferred generative AI from the text and the lawyer confirmed its use)","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Constitutional Court's order, a lawyer whose complaint cited non-existent and misinterpreted rulings, which the court presumed were AI-generated and the lawyer says came from a paid legal AI tool, was fined 25,000 crowns; INFO.CZ reported that the bar association's supervisory board was examining the case.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the lawyer fined by the Constitutional Court. The court invited the client to remedy the complaint so that the client would suffer no procedural harm, and INFO.CZ reports that the client was not affected, so the client is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CZ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_1","primarySourceLabel":"Czech Constitutional Court, order I. US 3004/25 imposing a disciplinary fine (1 December 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-26T03:09:43.763021+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-26T03:09:43.763021+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["czechia","legal-profession","hallucinated-citations","court-fine","constitutional-court"]}]}