A. v. NORWAY

2009-04-09 · European Court of Human Rights · Council of Europe

read the judgment

2What it rests on

16Relied 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.

+3 earlier20151 judgments20171 judgments20181 judgments5 years silent20237 judgments20241 judgments20251 judgments

16 judgments have relied on it, across 2011–2025

first 2011 · last 2025 · busiest 2023 (7 judgments)

What it rests on

2003-06-19PEDERSEN AND BAADSGAARD v. DENMARKEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-05-20BLADET TROMSØ AND STENSAAS v. NORWAYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

6 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04Kyriakides v. Cyprus, no. 39058/05Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03Sanchez Cardenas v. Norway, no. 12148/03Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00White v. Sweden, no. 42435/02

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.