ChatGPT in administrative law courts: tool or obstacle?

The case: request for compensation for planning damage

A touring car company from Venlo submitted a request to the municipality of Venlo for compensation for planning damage because a zoning change has restricted the possibilities for use of its plot of land. The Municipal Executive Board of Venlo engaged a consulting firm to calculate the reduction in value. The court engaged the Stichting Advisering Bestuursrechtspraak (hereinafter: STAB) as an expert to conduct an investigation into the depreciation of the plot. At first instance, the court adopted STAB's damage assessment. The court ruled that the company was entitled to planning damages of €23,000,000. As the college had granted the company an allowance of €25,000.00, the company was not harmed according to the court.

The coach company could not agree with this judgment. On appeal to the Division, the company argues that the damages exceed the €25,000,000 awarded. According to the company, the appraiser used incorrect comparables. According to the company, the appraiser wrongly used comparison objects in environmental category 3.2 and higher. After all, only activity in environmental category 2 is allowed on the plot.

Substantiated counter report appraiser necessary

The Division considers that - according to standard jurisprudence - not only the valuation method, but also the knowledge and experience of the expert plays a role in the valuation of immovable property. In principle, the correctness of a valuation report can only be successfully challenged with a substantiated counter-report from an independent valuer, which shows that the valuation report is incorrect.

ChatGPT as an expert?

The company submitted a piece to the Division before the hearing by which it intends to provide an explanation of the impact of the allowable environmental category on the value of business land in northern Limburg. However, this piece was not prepared by an appraiser, but by ChatGPT. The company did not include the question statement in the piece. Further, the information generated through ChatGPT did not include a source reference. The information also states that it is advisable to contact an appraiser for an accurate analysis.

The Division rules that ChatGPT's information on the impact of allowable environmental categories is not qualifies as a counter report from an independent expert. This means that ChatGPT's analysis cannot detract from the valuation report. Therefore, the company's appeal fails. The company would have been better off consulting an appraiser instead of ChatGPT.

ChatGPT is supportive tool, but not an expert

The Division's ruling makes it clear that technology such as ChatGPT can provide valuable support, but cannot take the place of an expert in administrative law proceedings. ChatGPT can help generate ideas, analyze large amounts of information or even draft documents, but lacks the required expertise and the ability to address (legal) issues with the appropriate depth. This makes it an unsuitable substitute for - in this case - an independent appraiser.

Thus, although AI is becoming increasingly integrated into many aspects of our daily lives, the tool is not suitable as a source of information in administrative proceedings. As it stands, courts will continue to rely on human expertise and experience over input from an AI tool, such as ChatGPT.

NOTES: For our case work, we use AI applications to serve you better and more efficiently. AI enables us to offer innovative solutions and to represent your interests in the best possible way. When deploying AI, we naturally adhere strictly to the laws and regulations applicable to the legal profession. In this way, we combine cutting-edge technology with reliable legal expertise.