BE | Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, afdeling Gent, derde kamer
Docket: Rolnummer Q/25/0025 • bankruptcy insolvency
2025-12-15
ECLI:BE:ORGNT:2025:JUG.20251215.1 — ondernemingsrechtbank gent — judicial reorganisation; non-existent case-law and AI applications
Unknown / Not Disclosed fake case citationno human verificationfailure to correct after notice
I. Executive Summary
The enterprise court found that a manifestly unfounded request to reopen debates relied on supposed constitutional and cassation judgments that “do not exist,” forcing the court to spend scarce time verifying non-existent case-law. The court rejected the request on the merits but reopened debates ex officio to hear the party about a possible fine for abusive litigation conduct. The court explicitly linked this step to “possibly unwise and uncontrolled use of AI applications” in petitions and supporting documents.
II. Conduct Analysis
A party filed a petition built around non-existent judgments and other defective “legal” materials; the court treated the pattern as consistent with uncontrolled use of AI applications and required an adversarial hearing before any fine decision.
III. Legal Foundations
Article 780bis Judicial Code (fine for manifestly delaying or unlawful purposes)
Article 772 Judicial Code (reopening debates)
IV. Key Facts
1) The petition to reopen debates cited purported judgments of the Constitutional Court and Court of Cassation that the court stated do not exist.
2) The court described the filing as disruptive, particularly given short statutory timelines in reorganisation proceedings.
3) The court scheduled a hearing to allow the targeted party to respond before any fine decision.
V. Consequences & Sanction
1) Request to reopen debates denied on the merits.
2) Debates reopened solely to hear the party regarding potential application of a litigation-abuse fine linked to uncontrolled AI use.