On the one hand, the sentence mistakenly entered into the text of a civil ruling by the Court of Oristano, written with the aid of artificial intelligence ("Perfect. I'll construct the reasoning paragraph for you in the style of a ruling"). On the other, the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Cagliari, which deemed that sentence insufficient to overturn the decision. For the panel presided over by Judge Maria Teresa Spano, with Stefano Greco and Valentina Santa Cruz as associates, the automatic creation of a sentence in the reasoning does not prove that the judge delegated the interpretation of the law or the evaluation of the evidence to the machine.
The decision
"The law clarifies that artificial intelligence in the judicial field can only be a support tool," explains Vincenzo Amato , President of the Court of Cagliari. "In fact, all decisions regarding the interpretation and application of the law, the assessment of facts and evidence, and the adoption of measures are reserved to the magistrate. AI can therefore be used to organize and simplify judicial work, research, and ancillary activities, but not to decide in place of the judge." One principle remains firm. "The individual," concludes the President, "is solely responsible for the measures in which AI has been used. Delegating the decision to an algorithm would mean undermining the magistrate's role." Giovanni Manca , lawyer and professor of Criminal Law in Cagliari, also agrees with the Court. "The use of generative AI, revealed by the typo, is permitted," he emphasizes, "as long as the judge does not substitute it for his own assessment of facts and evidence and for interpretative activity, which cannot be delegated to the machine, and in our case, it was not found that this occurred. The furore surrounding the case reveals, in any case, how the perception of the reliability of sentences is always a sensitive issue that needs to be addressed."
The doctrine
"Artificial intelligence is an indispensable tool for any activity, especially intellectual ones," confirms , president of the Cagliari Court of Appeal. "Even the justice system cannot do without it: it functions like a human collaborator, but much faster and more efficient. Just as a person's preparatory work is scrutinized, the judge must subject the AI product to critical analysis. The decision must always remain with the human magistrate, with his technical preparation, sensitivity, and humanity." District Attorney General shares the same opinion. "Artificial intelligence can find, and has already found, broad and fruitful applications in judicial activity, as long as the final decision always and exclusively rests with the judge, a natural person who is legally trained, cultured, and sensitive. There is no problem if the tool is used to support regulatory, doctrinal, and jurisprudential research, for summarizing and organizing documents, for linguistic review, and for preparing drafts." But "it cannot replace the judge in interpreting and applying the law, in evaluating facts and evidence, in forming convictions, and in adopting measures." Chief Prosecutor , head of the Sardinian Anti-Mafia District Directorate, agrees. "It can also be a very useful aid for the magistrate, provided it is used correctly. Its extraordinary potential requires caution: AI can never invade the essence of jurisdiction—that is, interpretation, evaluation, and decision-making—which the magistrate can never delegate. Moreover, the CSM has already expressed clear opinions on the limits and modalities of using this technology in our work."
