KROMBACH v. FRANCE

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

5What 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.

20061 judgments20071 judgments6 years silent20132 judgments20161 judgments4 years silent20201 judgments5 years silent20251 judgments

7 judgments have relied on it, across 2006–2025

first 2006 · last 2025 · busiest 2013 (2 judgments)

2025-08-26FTITI v. GREECEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2020-10-15MUHAMMAD AND MUHAMMAD v. ROMANIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2016-03-23BLOKHIN v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2013-11-28DVORSKI v. CROATIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2013-11-14BLOKHIN v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2007-11-15GALSTYAN v. ARMENIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2006-03-01SEJDOVIC v. ITALYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

What it rests on

2000-04-04WITOLD LITWA v. POLANDEuropean Court of Human Rights 1999-12-14KHALFAOUI v. FRANCEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-09-28CIVET v. FRANCEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-03-25NIKOLOVA v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-01-21VAN GEYSEGHEM v. BELGIUMEuropean Court of Human Rights

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.