3 As 34/2025 - 86 — yk v the high state prosecutor’s office in prague

Unknown / Not Disclosed (suspected) fake case citationno human verification

I. Executive Summary

The Supreme Administrative Court identified that a key authority cited in the cassation complaint did not exist as presented. The court stated that it is irrelevant “who or what” drafted the statements; the litigant bears responsibility for the submitted content. The complaint was dismissed, with no AI tool named, but the court’s formulation directly contemplated non-human drafting as a possibility.

II. Conduct Analysis

The complainant submitted a cassation complaint relying on an authority citation the court found fictitious; the court treated the filer as responsible regardless of whether a person or a tool produced the text.

III. Legal Foundations

Applicable procedural rules and judicial ethics codes.

IV. Key Facts

1) The court found the cited authority did not exist or could not be identified as cited. 2) The decision explicitly stated that responsibility remains with the filing party regardless of “who or what” wrote the statements.

V. Consequences & Sanction

1) Cassation complaint dismissed. 2) No AI-specific sanction imposed in the decision excerpt; the court focused on responsibility for filed content.