12 Os 124/25i — oberster gerichtshof (fundamental rights complaint in criminal matter)

Unknown / Not Disclosed wrong citation to real sourcefake case citationno human verification

I. Executive Summary

The Supreme Court rejected a fundamental-rights complaint because the filing did not satisfy minimum reasoning requirements and contained numerous incorrect or non-existent citations and quotation fragments. The decision does not attribute the errors to any AI tool, and it treats the defects as counsel’s responsibility for what was filed.

II. Conduct Analysis

Defence counsel submitted a complaint containing multiple incorrect statutory references, incorrect law gazette references, and citation/quotation fragments that the court found unusable for legal review.

III. Legal Foundations

§ 363a(1) StPO (fundamental-rights complaint requirements) § 344(2) StPO (reasoning requirements)

IV. Key Facts

1) The complaint referenced provisions and sources the court found incorrectly cited or not traceable as presented. 2) The court held the submission fell below the required standard of reasoned legal argument for the remedy.

V. Consequences & Sanction

1) Fundamental-rights complaint rejected. 2) The court did not engage the merits due to the defective, citation-driven reasoning.