ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

2014-05-22 · European Court of Human Rights · Council of Europe

read the judgment

2What it rests on

16Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

+3 earlier20212 judgments20222 judgments20232 judgments20243 judgments20251 judgments20261 judgments

16 judgments have relied on it, across 2016–2026

first 2016 · last 2026 · busiest 2024 (3 judgments)

What it rests on

2000-10-10DAKTARAS v. LITHUANIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-03-25NIKOLOVA v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

3 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.