Ústavní soud, usnesení sp. zn. I. ÚS 3004/25 — procedural fine for a constitutional complaint citing non-existent decisions
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic [Ústavní soud]
last revised 2025-12-01last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →
Judgment (guidance)In forceVerification duty
map categories:Sanctions for AI misuseDuty to verify AI output
The Czech Constitutional Court fined counsel Mgr. Pavel Kehl CZK 25,000 over a constitutional complaint citing decisions that did not exist or whose holdings were grossly misdescribed. The court identified anglicisms, sentence fragments and inconsistent citation formatting as indicators of AI drafting, and held counsel fully responsible for hallucinated arguments.
- Applies to
- lawyers
- Effective
- See version history
- Current version
- 1.0 · 01 Dec 2025
- Last verified
- 04 Sept 2026
- Official text
- nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_1
What the document requires
- Cited authorities including III. ÚS 2987/18, III. ÚS 3881/18 and II. ÚS 2264/14 either did not exist or were grossly misinterpreted.
- Indicators of AI generation: anglicisms, incomplete sentence fragments, inconsistent citation formatting and confusion between decision types.
- A lawyer bears full responsibility for every argument in a filing, including any hallucinating arguments produced by artificial intelligence.
- The CZK 25,000 fine was a quarter of the CZK 100,000 statutory maximum, reflecting a first offence and the remediable nature of the defects.
Version history
| Version | Date | What changed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0current | 2025-12-01 | Decision imposing a CZK 25,000 procedural fine on counsel. | official |
Sources
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Ústavní soud, usnesení sp. zn. I. ÚS 3004/25 — procedural fine for a constitutional complaint citing non-existent decisions" (Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic [Ústavní soud], 1.0, 2025-12-01), safelegalai.com/regulation/other/cz-usoud-i-us-3004-25-fabricated-citations (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
More official documents in Other
- Letter No. 112/WKMA.Y/HK2.1/IX/2026: draft judgment-writing guidance and templates for the new Criminal Codes · Mahkamah Agung
- AI in the advocate's practice: opportunities, tools and safe use [DI advokato praktikoje: galimybės, įrankiai ir saugus naudojimas] · Lietuvos advokatūra
- Supreme Court of Japan generative-AI demonstration for civil trials (FY2027 budget request) · Supreme Court of Japan
- Recommendation Guide on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers [Avukatlar İçin Yapay Zekâ Kullanımı Tavsiye Rehberi] · Türkiye Barolar Birliği (TBB)
- Decision No. 1671/QD-TTg approving the National Strategy on Artificial Intelligence to 2030, vision to 2045 · Prime Minister of Vietnam
- Guideline on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Indonesian Advocates [Pedoman Penggunaan Kecerdasan Buatan] · PERADI