TAMMER v. ESTONIA

2001-02-06 · European Court of Human Rights · Council of Europe

read the judgment

7What it rests on

11Relied 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.

+4 earlier20122 judgments20131 judgments20151 judgments20171 judgments5 years silent20221 judgments20241 judgments

11 judgments have relied on it, across 2003–2024

first 2003 · last 2024 · busiest 2012 (2 judgments)

What it rests on

2000-06-27CONSTANTINESCU v. ROMANIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2000-01-11NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-11-25NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-07-08CEYLAN v. TURKEYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-05-20BLADET TROMSØ AND STENSAAS v. NORWAYEuropean Court of Human Rights 1999-01-21FRESSOZ AND ROIRE v. FRANCEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-01-21JANOWSKI v. POLANDEuropean 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.