ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:10388

Not Disclosed incorrect citationsnonexistent case citationcause not established

I. Executive Summary

During the hearing, the court established that all Supreme Court citations in the defendant’s statement of defence were incorrect, including mismatched or non-existent ECLI references. Counsel attributed this to a technical issue converting a word file to pdf. The court did not decide whether this amounted to a breach of the duty of truthfulness (article 21 Rv) and imposed no procedural consequence specifically for the citation errors. No AI tool was mentioned in the decision.

II. Conduct Analysis

A party filed a brief containing incorrect and, in part, non-existent case citations; the explanation given was a document conversion problem. The decision does not identify any AI tool.

III. Legal Foundations

Article 21 Rv (mentioned, not decided)

IV. Key Facts

1) The court found that every referenced Supreme Court decision in the defendant’s pleading was incorrect; some ECLI numbers did not exist. 2) Counsel stated the errors were caused by converting a word file to pdf. 3) The court left undecided whether article 21 Rv was breached, because the defendant gained no advantage from the incorrect presentation.

V. Consequences & Sanction

1) The court treated the citation errors as non-determinative and did not rule on any article 21 Rv issue. 2) No specific procedural sanction was imposed for the citation errors.