JANSONS v. LATVIA

2022-09-08 · European Court of Human Rights · Council of Europe

read the judgment

6What it rests on

3Relied 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.

20242 judgments20251 judgments

3 judgments have relied on it, across 2024–2025

first 2024 · last 2025 · busiest 2024 (2 judgments)

2025-10-07ĐORĐEVIĆ v. SERBIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2024-04-16NINA DIMITROVA v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2024-01-16NAFORNIȚA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVAEuropean Court of Human Rights

What it rests on

2018-11-06BURLYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINEEuropean Court of Human Rights 2018-09-25DENISOV v. UKRAINEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2016-10-11ZUBAC v. CROATIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2016-06-14MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2015-06-16SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJANEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2013-11-07VALLIANATOS AND OTHERS v. GREECEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

12 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.

AB v. Sweden, no. 18700/09Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09Kapa and Others v. Poland, nos. 75031/13Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, no. 47148/99O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Ltd. v. Ireland, no. 44460/16Others v. Romania, no. 12694/04Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00Surugiu v. Romania, no. 48995/99Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07Yevgeniy Zakharov v. Russia, no. 66610/10

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.