# Czech Constitutional Court fines a lawyer 25,000 CZK for a complaint built on AI-hallucinated case law

> The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic imposed a 25,000 CZK procedural fine on Prague lawyer Mgr. Pavol Kehl after his constitutional complaint argued from 12 Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights decisions — a substantial part of which do not exist. The Court presumed the filing had been generated by an unnamed AI model whose hallucinations he never verified, and held that lawyers bear full responsibility for a filing including any hallucinated AI argumentation (usnesení I.ÚS 3004/25, 1 December 2025).

- Verification status: pending
- Case type: deployment
- Provider: Unnamed generative AI model (court presumption; no product named in the order)
- Client: Ústavní soud (Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic), 1st Senate — I.ÚS 3004/25, Courts / legal (AI-governance honest-negative) (named)
- Sector: legal / CZ / cross
- Canonical URL: https://theinternetninja.com/stories/cz-ustavni-soud-i-us-3004-25-25000-czk-fine-lawyer-ai-fabricated-constitutional-court-ecthr-citations-2025/
- Source: The Internet Ninja (theinternetninja.com), independent verified-proof platform

## Outcomes

| Metric | Before | After |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 25,000 CZK procedural fine (pořádková pokuta) on the lawyer under § 61(1) of the Constitutional Court Act (statutory maximum 100,000 CZK; imposed at one quarter of the range as a first offense) |  |  |
| Complaint argued from 12 Constitutional Court / ECtHR decisions, a substantial part of which do not exist and part grossly misinterpreted |  |  |
| Court presumed the submission was generated by an AI model and held lawyers responsible for hallucinated AI argumentation |  |  |

## Verification method

Tier-1 published Constitutional Court order I.ÚS 3004/25 (independent adjudicator), byte-tied to an organic Wayback capture (sha1-b32 LYEMK6RGT2GM34LKTJNBHZNASVXPNRIN = CDX digest), corroborated firsthand by two mutually independent archive-bound Czech newsrooms (Lupa.cz, Info.cz) plus the ČTK national wire (ČT24/iROZHLAS). All quotes bind under quotecheck.py.

## Full case file

## The problem
A Prague lawyer, Mgr. Pavol Kehl, filed a constitutional complaint (ústavní stížnost)
with the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic on behalf of his client, challenging
a Supreme Administrative Court resolution (č. j. 10 Azs 113/2025-40). The complaint argued
from twelve decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights:
"V ústavní stížnosti argumentoval celkem 12 rozhodnutími Ústavního soudu a Evropského soudu
pro lidská práva."

On careful review, the Court found the argument rested on authorities that were not real:
"podstatná část z těchto rozhodnutí vůbec neexistuje a část je povinným hrubě dezinterpretována"
— a substantial part of the cited decisions do not exist at all, and part are grossly
misinterpreted, with only a small part potentially relevant.

## What was built
The complaint was drafted with generative AI. The Court did not merely find bad citations;
it identified textual hallmarks of AI authorship (anglicisms, fragmentary keyword-style
sentences, inconsistent citation formatting, and a failure to distinguish a *nález* from a
*usnesení*) and drew the inference: "To vede Ústavní soud k domněnce, že povinný generoval
podání pomocí některého z modelů umělé inteligence, poté však neověřil existenci citovaných
rozhodnutí." The order names no specific product — "některého z modelů umělé inteligence"
(some AI model). It held that the tools are beside the point and the responsibility is not:
"odpovídají tedy i za případnou halucinující argumentaci umělé inteligence, byla-li při
vytvoření podání použita."

## The outcome
The senate chair (předseda senátu Tomáš Langášek) imposed a procedural fine on the lawyer:
"Mgr. Pavolu Kehlovi jako povinnému se ukládá pořádková pokuta ve výši 25 000 Kč." The fine
was set under § 61(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, which permits a fine of up to
100,000 CZK ("uložit usnesením pořádkovou pokutu do výše 100 000 Kč"); the Court imposed only
one quarter of the range because it was a first offense: "Pokutu uložil pouze ve čtvrtině
zákonného rozpětí, neboť se povinný hrubého ztížení postupu řízení před Ústavním soudem
dopustil poprvé."

Two mutually independent Czech newsrooms reported the fine firsthand. Lupa.cz: "Ústavní soud
uložil pořádkovou pokutu ve výši 25 000 Kč advokátovi, který ve stížnosti podané jménem
klienta argumentoval neexistujícími soudními rozhodnutími." Info.cz reproduced the order's
reasoning and reported the amount ("pražskému advokátovi uložil pokutu 25 tisíc Kč"), framing
it as "Pravděpodobně historicky poprvé" — likely the first time. Czech Television's ČT24, on
the ČTK wire, added that no other penalty for "hallucinating" AI could be found in the
Constitutional Court's database: "Jiný případ pokuty za „halucinující" umělou inteligenci
v databázi ÚS dohledat nelze."

The AI product is unnamed; the 100,000 CZK figure is the statutory ceiling, not the fine; the
25,000 CZK is a procedural obstruction fine under § 61, not a Bar disciplinary sanction; and
the AI use is the Court's presumption, not (in this order) an admission. See the dossier's
`excluded_claims` for each guard.

## Path to green
This is an honest-negative, court-origin AI-governance story — a verified example of AI
failure adjudicated by a nation's highest constitutional court, not a client testimonial. No
green badge is sought and none may be applied by any agent. Every figure already rests on the
Tier-1 published order (byte-tied to Wayback) and is restated firsthand by two independent
archive-bound newsrooms. The Constitutional Court's public NALUS record, any downstream Czech
Bar disciplinary proceeding against Mgr. Pavol Kehl, and the reporting desks (Lupa.cz, Info.cz,
ČTK/ČT24/iROZHLAS) are the human confirmation points.