LIETZOW v. GERMANY

2001-02-13 · European Court of Human Rights · Council of Europe

read the judgment

1What it rests on

4Relied 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.

20071 judgments20091 judgments14 years silent20231 judgments20241 judgments

4 judgments have relied on it, across 2007–2024

first 2007 · last 2024 · busiest 2007 (1 judgments)

2024-06-13CVIKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2023-05-23YILMAZ AYDEMİR v. TÜRKİYEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2009-07-09MOOREN v. GERMANYEuropean Court of Human Rights 2007-12-13MOOREN v. GERMANYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

What it rests on

1999-03-25NIKOLOVA v. BULGARIAEuropean 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.