tribunal administratif de grenoble — ordonnance du 3 décembre 2025 — n° 2509827

Unknown / Not Disclosed (generative AI tool mentioned) ai assisted legal draftingfake case citationincoherent pleading

I. Executive Summary

The tribunal noted that the application’s lack of clarity likely resulted from it being drafted using a so-called generative AI tool that was wholly unsuited to that use. It also noted duplicated formulations and fanciful case-law references. The tribunal construed the filing as an attempt to annul a revenue title but found the invoked grounds manifestly unfounded or insufficiently substantiated. The application was rejected by order.

II. Conduct Analysis

The claimant filed an unclear application that the tribunal considered likely drafted using a generative AI tool, including duplicated arguments and fanciful case-law references.

III. Legal Foundations

Article R.222-1, code de justice administrative Article R.412-1, code de justice administrative Article R.612-1, code de justice administrative Article L.541-3, code de l'environnement

IV. Key Facts

1) The tribunal stated the lack of clarity likely came from the application being drafted using a generative AI tool, described as totally unsuitable for that purpose. 2) The filing included duplicated external-legality arguments and fanciful references to case law. 3) The tribunal rejected the application under article R.222-1 of the code of administrative justice.

V. Consequences & Sanction

1) Application rejected. 2) No monetary sanction recorded in the order.