XXXX v. Wallonie Bruxelles

Council of State of Belgium · Belgium · 2024-11-08 · ECLI:BE:RVSCE:2024:ARR.261.320

No weight givenAcknowledged AI output tenderedchat-outputoffered by applicantchallenge: weight

Counsel cited ChatGPT estimates of processing time to support an emergency suspension request. The Belgian Council of State did not accept that generated timing information as proof of urgency and rejected the request on traditional irreparable-harm grounds.

The court's finding, in its words

Le délai de traitement renseigné par ChatGPT n'établissait pas l'extrême urgence requise.

Short verbatim extract (≤25 words) for identification; the judgment is linked below and is the record.

Decision: damiencharlotin.com · archived copy
Read: 2026-09-07 · primary document read
Found via: Damien Charlotin acknowledged-AI-output lead CSV (CC0)
Notes: French PDF copy read; no official source or publication-ban status confirmed.

No alleged media is hosted or linked. Where the court found material genuine or fabricated, the finding is the court's; where a party merely alleged it, this page says so. Publication restrictions have not yet been checked for this row. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub