Contract

the citation graph

THLIMMENOS v. GREECE

2000-04-06 · European Court of Human Rights · Council of Europe

read the judgment

3What it rests on

27Relied 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.

+12 earlier20201 judgments20225 judgments20233 judgments20241 judgments20251 judgments20261 judgments

27 judgments have relied on it, across 2000–2026

first 2000 · last 2026 · busiest 2022 (5 judgments)

2026-03-17D.A. AND R.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOMEuropean Court of Human Rights 2025-06-10Á.F.L. v. ICELANDEuropean Court of Human Rights 2024-06-25BECHI v. ROMANIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2023-08-29KOVAČEVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2023-07-11SEMENYA v. SWITZERLANDEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2023-06-08ALONSO SAURA v. SPAINEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2022-12-20MORARU AND MARIN v. ROMANIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2022-10-18MUHAMMAD v. SPAINEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2022-10-11BEELER v. SWITZERLANDEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2022-06-07TAGANROG LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2022-05-31ARNAR HELGI LÁRUSSON v. ICELANDEuropean Court of Human Rights 2020-10-20NAPOTNIK v. ROMANIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2017-11-28MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2016-03-22GUBERINA v. CROATIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2015-05-19LUPENI GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH AND OTHERS v. ROMANIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2012-06-26KURIĆ AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2012-03-22KONSTANTIN MARKIN v. RUSSIA European Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2011-07-07STUMMER v. AUSTRIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2010-12-09SAVEZ CRKAVA "RIJEČ ŽIVOTA" AND OTHERS v. CROATIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2009-12-22SEJDIĆ AND FINCI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2009-02-18ANDREJEVA v. LATVIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2008-02-12KAFKARIS v. CYPRUSEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2005-07-06NACHOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2004-02-26NACHOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2001-01-18CHAPMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOMEuropean Court of Human Rights×2followed 2000-11-28REHBOCK v. SLOVENIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2000-10-26HASAN AND CHAUSH v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

What it rests on

1999-04-29CHASSAGNOU AND OTHERS v. FRANCEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-03-25NIKOLOVA v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-02-18LAINO v. ITALYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

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.