VAN GEYSEGHEM v. BELGIUM

1999-01-21 · European Court of Human Rights · Council of Europe

0What it rests on

7Relied 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.

19991 judgments20002 judgments20011 judgments5 years silent20061 judgments20091 judgments15 years silent20241 judgments

7 judgments have relied on it, across 1999–2024

first 1999 · last 2024 · busiest 2000 (2 judgments)

2024-11-26SOUROULLAS KAY AND ZANNETTOS v. CYPRUSEuropean Court of Human Rights 2009-01-13TAXQUET v. BELGIUMEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2006-03-01SEJDOVIC v. ITALYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2001-02-13KROMBACH v. FRANCEEuropean Court of Human Rights 2000-06-22COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUMEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2000-05-04ROTARU v. ROMANIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-12-08FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY PARTY (ÖZDEP) v. TURKEYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

What it rests on

No citation has been read out of this judgment.

The European Court does not publish its citations as data. They are read out of the text of the judgment itself. Until that reading reaches this judgment, it has no outgoing edge.

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.