German AI case-law monitor

Where AI appears in German court decisions.

Search published decisions in which AI terms occur in the official text. Every match leads to the court, date, docket number, ECLI where published and exact context—without generative interpretation.

Observed official federal corpusAutomatically checked · 30 September 2026Observed since · 20 July 2026
48published decision documents
4observed courts
119exact text passages
211recorded observations
The decisive boundary

A match is a text occurrence—not legal relevance.

A document appears because a published search rule matches the observed official text. This proves neither that AI was decisive nor any particular legal position.

passage ≠ assessment · document ≠ proceeding
Decision date

When courts expressly use AI terms

Positions follow only the published decision date. Observation time and subsequent changes remain separate.

Decision documents by decision date
  1. 3 documents
  2. 2 documents
  3. 2 documents
  4. 2 documents
  5. 1 document
  6. 3 documents
  7. 8 documents
  8. 2 documents
  9. 5 documents
  10. 11 documents
  11. 7 documents
  12. 2 documents

Courts in the observed corpus

BPatG36
BGH7
BVerfG4
BVerwG1

Exact search rules

Artificial intelligence (German)64
Neural network (German)22
Neural net (German)15
Machine learning (German)10
DABUS9
Deep Learning4
Machine learning3
Artificial intelligence2
AI-generated (German)1
ChatGPT0
Large Language Model0
Latest published decisions
  1. BGHBGH, Urteil vom 23. April 2026 - I ZR 41/24
  2. BPatGBPatG, Urteil vom 25. Februar 2026 - 4 Ni 25/24 (EP)
  3. BPatGBPatG, Beschluss vom 24. November 2025 - 29 W (pat) 34/23
  4. BGHBGH, Urteil vom 17. Juli 2025 - III ZR 388/23
  5. BGHBGH, Beschluss vom 26. Juni 2025 - StB 30/25
  6. BVerfGBVerfG, Beschluss vom 24. Juni 2025 - 1 BvR 180/23
Sources, data & citation

Inspectable down to the passage.

Download the working data, subscribe to the observation chronicle or copy the short reference. The official text remains authoritative.

Official data source

The interface is in pilot operation. The observed corpus is therefore not a complete inventory of German case law.

Open official source ↗
Methodological boundary

Exact search, not legal interpretation.

Retrieval, normalisation, search rules and publication are deterministic. The monitor creates no summaries, relevance scores or legal assessments.

01

Retain the official identity

Every decision document keeps its document number, docket, ECLI where published and source URLs.

02

Document the passage

Every match leads back to its text, section and triggered search rule.

03

Separate time axes

Decision date, first retrieval and later change remain distinct facts.

04

Bound the coverage

Not observed means neither zero nor absent in reality.

Source-based monitoring

Need a defensible monitor for your field?

We build durable data products with stable identifiers, visible claim boundaries and inspectable primary evidence.