14 Os 95/25i — oberster gerichtshof (ai-drafted submission with incorrect citations)

Unknown / Not Disclosed no human verificationwrong citation to real sourcefake case citation

I. Executive Summary

The Supreme Court rejected a fundamental-rights complaint and criticized the submission for containing numerous incorrect citations and text fragments. Counsel expressly stated that the filing had been produced using artificial intelligence and had not been checked. The court held the submission was below the minimum standard of legal reasoning required for review.

II. Conduct Analysis

Defence counsel filed a fundamental-rights complaint drafted using artificial intelligence, with many incorrect citations and pasted text fragments, and admitted it was submitted without verification.

III. Legal Foundations

§ 363a(1) StPO (fundamental-rights complaint requirements) § 292 last sentence StPO (as referenced by the court)

IV. Key Facts

1) The filing contained multiple incorrect statutory and case references and fragmentary quotations. 2) Counsel acknowledged the document was created with artificial intelligence and was not reviewed before filing. 3) The court treated the deficiencies as preventing meaningful judicial review.

V. Consequences & Sanction

1) Fundamental-rights complaint rejected as inadmissible/insufficiently reasoned. 2) Costs of the remedy proceeding were imposed (as provided by the decision).