Antwerp, 10 May 2025 — A fundamental legal error in a 2020 Belgian criminal judgment has been uncovered by a citizen using ChatGPT. The error went unnoticed by courts, clerks, and government attorneys for five years, leading to forced eviction, property loss, deregistration from the population register, and the cancellation of disability benefits for a dependent child.
On 8 January 2020, the Antwerp Court of Appeal issued a judgment involving the partial forfeiture of real estate. The official court record confirms that neither the defendants nor their lawyer were present at the ruling. According to established Belgian Supreme Court case law (e.g., Cass. 6 March 2018, P.17.1096.N), such a judgment is deemed in absentia and therefore not enforceable without formal service (Article 187 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure). Yet the judgment was incorrectly marked as “contradictory” (op tegenspraak), enabling enforcement without service.
Relying on this error, Belgian authorities transferred ownership of the property to the State, evicted the family, and triggered a chain of consequences including loss of housing registration and social benefits for a severely disabled child. Despite repeated objections from the affected family between 2020 and 2024, the government’s attorney continued legal enforcement without addressing the procedural flaw.
Only in 2025 did the family obtain clarity — not from legal aid, but via ChatGPT, which identified the procedural defect, referenced the correct case law, and clarified their rights under Belgian and European law.
“No lawyer pointed this out. But ChatGPT gave us the key case law and legal articles in minutes. That’s when we realized everything — including our eviction — was based on an unenforceable judgment,” the family states.
Legal proceedings are now pending, including:
– a motion to reopen the criminal case through a formal opposition procedure;
– a petition before the Belgian Council of State regarding the improper property transfer;
– and a claim for compensation based on violations of the right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR), the right to property (Protocol No. 1 ECHR), and children’s rights (Article 22bis, Belgian Constitution).
This case highlights both the risks of unchecked procedural error in the justice system and the growing role of artificial intelligence in making legal insight accessible to ordinary citizens — especially when institutions fail to protect them.
Press Contact (confidential or on the record):
Antonius Hoffmann
Documentation available upon request to journalists under confidentiality agreements.
