Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
The Higher Administrative Court for North Rhine-Westphalia treats a smartphone's capacity to retrieve or generate content as what distinguishes it from a crib sheet, in Beschluss 6 A 392/25 of 24 August 2026, while grounding the outcome on the device being switched on and used
This will be reported as a German court ruling on AI in examinations. It is narrower than that. The AI reference is an intensifier of the same Senate's settled case law, the operative words in the Leitsätze contain no AI term at all, and the disposition rests on the phone being switched on and used.
Bottom line: A Beschluss, a reasoned order under section 130a VwGO, not a judgment after hearing. Decided 24 August 2026. Revision was not admitted, so it binds the parties and is persuasive within North Rhine-Westphalia. It is not binding law elsewhere in Germany.
Who this affects: Candidates and examining bodies under the study regulation of the HSPV NRW, the state university of applied sciences for public administration, which trains police cadets among others. It is a Laufbahnprüfung matter, not a general professional-examination rule.
Where AI actually appears: As an intensifier. The court refers to opportunities for deception which it offers and which have been deepened and broadened once again by the use of artificial intelligence, and cites its own 2021 decision 6 B 1868/20 for the underlying rule. The Leitsätze and Schlagworte contain no AI term. Generativ, ChatGPT and Sprachmodell each appear zero times.
The sentence worth reading: At paragraph 74 the court distinguishes a smartphone from a written crib sheet by what it lets a candidate do: abzurufen bzw. zu generieren, to retrieve or generate. AI is flagged there with insbesondere, in particular, as one instance rather than as the test.
What the outcome rests on: Paragraph 82 grounds the disposition on the device having been switched on and used, not on its generative capacity.
Primary sources: OVG NRW, Beschluss of 24 August 2026, 6 A 392/25, full text (NRWE)
- Instrument
- Beschluss of 24 August 2026 in 6 A 392/25, ECLI:DE:OVGNRW:2026:0824.6A392.25.00
- Authority
- Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 6. Senat
- Jurisdiction
- North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
- Court below
- Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen, 4 K 3460/21
- Date of legal event
- 24 August 2026, read from the decision's own Datum field above the Leitsätze, corroborated by the ECLI on its face and by the canonical filename
- Form
- Beschluss under section 130a VwGO, an order without oral hearing (paragraph 26). Not a judgment
- Bindingness
- Revision was not admitted. It binds the parties and carries persuasive weight within NRW. It is not binding precedent for other German courts
- The provision applied
- Ordnungswidriges Verhalten under section 20(1) sentence 1 number 3 of the StudO-BA Teil A, a study regulation of the HSPV NRW. This is an academic and career-examination rule, not criminal sentencing
- AI vocabulary in the decision
- künstliche Intelligenz appears in the reasoning as an intensifier. generativ: 0. ChatGPT: 0. Sprachmodell: 0. The Leitsätze and Schlagworte contain no AI term
- Reach
- Narrow. It concerns a Laufbahnprüfung. The court cites BayVGH on section 11 JAPO in BOTH directions, once in support and once as authority denying a besonders schwerer Fall
- Editorial Note
- Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
- Primary source
- https://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/ovgs/ovg_nrw/j2026/6_A_392_25_Beschluss_20260824.html
What the court actually said about generating content
The passage worth quoting is paragraph 74, where the court explains why a smartphone is not merely a modern crib sheet. A Spickzettel carries what the candidate wrote on it in advance. A connected device lets the candidate obtain content during the examination, and the court's phrase is abzurufen bzw. zu generieren, to retrieve or, as the case may be, to generate.
That distinction between retrieving and generating is the genuinely interesting part, and it is the reason this decision is worth a professional's attention at all. Retrieval was always the concern with a connected device. Generation is a different capability, because the material need not exist anywhere beforehand.
But note how the court frames it. Artificial intelligence is introduced there with insbesondere, in particular, as one instance of that capability rather than as the legal test. The test remains the rule the Senate already had.
Why we are not calling this an AI ruling
At paragraph 71 the court describes opportunities for deception which it offers and which have been deepened and broadened once again by the use of artificial intelligence, and it cites its own 2021 decision 6 B 1868/20 for the underlying proposition. The words noch einmal, once again, are doing the work: AI intensifies an existing line of authority rather than creating a new one.
Two structural facts confirm the reading. The Leitsätze and the Schlagworte, the court's own headnotes and keywords, contain no artificial-intelligence term at all. And generativ, ChatGPT and Sprachmodell each appear zero times in the decision.
Most importantly, paragraph 82 grounds the disposition on the device having been switched on and used. That is the operative finding. A decision whose outcome turns on the phone being on is not a decision about what the phone could generate.
The AI reasoning is not obiter, because it forms part of the reasoning that reverses the court below. But it is auxiliary rather than load-bearing, and anyone citing this as German authority on AI in examinations should say so.
How far it reaches, which is not far
The provision applied is ordnungswidriges Verhalten under section 20(1) sentence 1 number 3 of the StudO-BA Teil A, a study regulation of the HSPV NRW, the state university of applied sciences for public administration. The context is a Laufbahnprüfung, a career examination in the public service.
It is a Beschluss under section 130a VwGO, decided without an oral hearing, and Revision was not admitted. So it binds the parties and carries persuasive weight in North Rhine-Westphalia. It is not binding on other German courts.
On the question of whether it generalises to regulated professional examinations, the decision itself is the best evidence against the proposition. It cites the Bavarian administrative court on section 11 JAPO twice and in opposite directions, once in support of its position and once as authority denying a besonders schwerer Fall on comparable facts. A line of authority that can be cited both ways is not a settled standard.
The decision also did not carry a press release: the OVG's own current-decisions index lists items for 17, 20, 26, 27 and 28 August 2026, with no entry for 24 August.
If you advise an examining body, the usable point is paragraph 74: a connected device differs from a crib sheet because it lets a candidate retrieve or generate content during the examination, and generation is a genuinely different capability from retrieval. That is worth writing into examination rules. What you should not do is cite this as German authority that AI use is itself an aggravating factor. The court treats AI as intensifying opportunities for deception it had already recognised in 2021, its own headnotes contain no AI term, and it grounds the outcome on the phone being switched on and used. It is a Beschluss without oral hearing, Revision was not admitted, and it concerns a police-cadet career examination under an HSPV NRW study regulation.
Source File
https://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/ovgs/ovg_nrw/j2026/6_A_392_25_Beschluss_20260824.html
Open the decision on NRWE and confirm the Datum field reads 24.08.2026 above the Leitsätze, and that the ECLI on its face is ECLI:DE:OVGNRW:2026:0824.6A392.25.00. Confirm at paragraph 26 that it proceeds under section 130a VwGO. Read paragraph 71 for the noch einmal vertieft und erweitert phrasing and the citation to 6 B 1868/20, paragraph 74 for abzurufen bzw. zu generieren, and paragraph 82 for the ground of decision. Search the Leitsätze and Schlagworte for any AI term and confirm there is none. One retrieval trap: a NRWE keyword SEARCH via plain curl returns HTTP 200 at roughly 230 KB with sort controls rendered and zero result rows, even for queries with thousands of real hits, so a search that comes back empty is not evidence. Deep-link the decision URL directly instead, and verify with a negative control such as the same slug with Urteil in place of Beschluss, which should 404.
Täuschungsmöglichkeiten, die dieses bietet und die sich durch die Nutzung künstlicher Intelligenz noch einmal vertieft und erweitert haben. - OVG NRW, Beschluss of 24 August 2026, 6 A 392/25, paragraph 71 (translated: opportunities for deception which it offers and which have been deepened and broadened once again by the use of artificial intelligence)
FAQ
Did a German court rule that using AI in an exam is an aggravating factor?
Not as such. The decision treats artificial intelligence as intensifying opportunities for deception the same Senate had already recognised, citing its own 2021 decision 6 B 1868/20. The court's own headnotes and keywords contain no AI term, and the disposition rests on the device having been switched on and used.
Is the decision binding?
Only between the parties. It is a Beschluss under section 130a VwGO, decided without oral hearing, and Revision was not admitted. It carries persuasive weight within North Rhine-Westphalia and is not binding on other German courts.
What is the practically useful holding?
The distinction at paragraph 74 between a written crib sheet and a connected device, on the ground that the device lets a candidate retrieve or generate content during the examination. Generation is treated as a different capability from retrieval.
Does it apply to professional examinations generally?
No. It concerns a Laufbahnprüfung under section 20(1) sentence 1 number 3 of the StudO-BA Teil A, a study regulation of the HSPV NRW. The decision itself cites Bavarian authority on section 11 JAPO in both directions, which tells against treating it as a settled general standard.
Which words does the decision not use?
generativ, ChatGPT and Sprachmodell each appear zero times, and no artificial-intelligence term appears in the Leitsätze or Schlagworte.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.