OSSEWAARDE v. RUSSIA

2023-03-07 · European Court of Human Rights · Council of Europe

read the judgment

5What it rests on

5Relied 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 judgments20252 judgments20261 judgments

5 judgments have relied on it, across 2024–2026

first 2024 · last 2026 · busiest 2024 (2 judgments)

2026-07-09BARSUK AND GYL v. UKRAINEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2025-07-08RAFIYEV v. AZERBAIJANEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2025-02-11NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2024-02-06HAMZAYAN v. ARMENIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2024-02-01SARDAR BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJANEuropean Court of Human Rights

What it rests on

2023-01-24KUTAYEV v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2023-01-17FEDOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2017-01-24KHAMTOKHU AND AKSENCHIK v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2016-05-24BIAO v. DENMARKEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2009-02-18ANDREJEVA v. LATVIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

9 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.

Aleksandr Aleksandrov v. Russia, no. 14431/06Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos. 76836/01Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, no. 184/02Leven v. Kazakhstan, no. 2131/20Masaev v. Moldova, no. 6303/05Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia, no. 42911/08Paraskeva Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 37193/07

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.