What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Legal Norm | Conclusion quotes Articles 871 and 877 Ger.W. in incorrect or non‑existent wording; court supplied correct formulations and found the cited language inaccurate. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Conclusion cites an incorrect/oversimplified wording attributed to art. 962 Ger.W. about appointment of experts; court provided correct text and noted the cited version was wrong. || False Quotes: Case Law | Cited ECHR decision 'Moretti en Benedetti t. Italië (27 april 2010, nr. 16318/07)' with passages about paternity recognition was not found in the cited judgment (which concerned adoption) and the quoted language does not appear in the decision. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Conclusion cites a non‑existent/incorrect passage attributed to old art. 318 BW regarding recognition where father never maintained a familial bond; court could not find such provision. || Fabricated: Case Law | Regional court judgments (e.g., Hof van Beroep Antwerpen, 20 maart 2019 (2019/AR/0524); Hof van Beroep Brussel, 15 oktober 2018) cited in the conclusion could not be located in Juportal and appear unfindable. || Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple cassation decisions cited (e.g., 'Cass. 6 juni 2019 (C.18.0543.N)', 'Cass. 25 januari 2018 (C.17.0331.N)', 'Cass. 21 oktober 2013') were not found in Juridat/JURA/Juportal and appear unfindable. || Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | A set of Belgian doctrinal works and articles (e.g., S. Stijns RW 2012-13; M. Puelinckx-Coene TPR 2010; F. Swennen TPR 2019, Handboek 2020) were found to be fictional/complete fabrications by the court's database searches. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Conclusion contained an incorrect quotation attributed to old art. 1382 BW; court identified the wording as incorrect compared to the real text.

Sanction teardown · CA Ghent (11th), Belgium · 2025-09-18

Family law Case 2024/FA/315

What happened

In CA Ghent (11th), Belgium, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

False Quotes (Legal Norm)

Conclusion quotes Articles 871 and 877 Ger.W. in incorrect or non‑existent wording; court supplied correct formulations and found the cited language inaccurate.
False Quotes (Legal Norm)

Conclusion cites an incorrect/oversimplified wording attributed to art. 962 Ger.W. about appointment of experts; court provided correct text and noted the cited version was wrong.
False Quotes (Case Law)

Cited ECHR decision 'Moretti en Benedetti t. Italië (27 april 2010, nr. 16318/07)' with passages about paternity recognition was not found in the cited judgment (which concerned adoption) and the quoted language does not appear in the decision.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Conclusion cites a non‑existent/incorrect passage attributed to old art. 318 BW regarding recognition where father never maintained a familial bond; court could not find such provision.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Regional court judgments (e.g., Hof van Beroep Antwerpen, 20 maart 2019 (2019/AR/0524); Hof van Beroep Brussel, 15 oktober 2018) cited in the conclusion could not be located in Juportal and appear unfindable.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Multiple cassation decisions cited (e.g., 'Cass. 6 juni 2019 (C.18.0543.N)', 'Cass. 25 januari 2018 (C.17.0331.N)', 'Cass. 21 oktober 2013') were not found in Juridat/JURA/Juportal and appear unfindable.
Fabricated (Doctrinal Work)

A set of Belgian doctrinal works and articles (e.g., S. Stijns RW 2012-13; M. Puelinckx-Coene TPR 2010; F. Swennen TPR 2019, Handboek 2020) were found to be fictional/complete fabrications by the court's database searches.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Conclusion contained an incorrect quotation attributed to old art. 1382 BW; court identified the wording as incorrect compared to the real text.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Disregarded all fictitious/unfindable sources, admonished counsel

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/879/1760690519185.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checker Back to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49 Sanctions-motion template