HANDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA

2021-04-06 · European Court of Human Rights · Council of Europe

read the judgment

6What it rests on

12Relied 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.

20224 judgments20231 judgments20242 judgments20253 judgments20262 judgments

12 judgments have relied on it, across 2022–2026

first 2022 · last 2026 · busiest 2022 (4 judgments)

2026-06-23KARCHAVA v. GEORGIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2026-01-13MLADINA D.D. LJUBLJANA v. SLOVENIA (No. 2)European Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2025-11-25AZADLIQ NEWSPAPER v. AZERBAIJANEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2025-03-04GIRGINOVA v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2025-02-11NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2024-06-20FRIEDRICH AND OTHERS v. POLANDEuropean Court of Human Rights 2024-04-16BORISLAV TONCHEV v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2023-06-08FRAGOSO DACOSTA v. SPAINEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2022-10-13BOUTON v. FRANCEEuropean Court of Human Rights 2022-10-04PAKETOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2022-06-14STOYANOVA v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2022-03-22Y AND OTHERS v. BULGARIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

What it rests on

2020-02-13IBRAHIMOV AND MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJANEuropean Court of Human Rights 2018-03-20RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2015-09-01KHLAIFIA AND OTHERS v. ITALYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2013-11-14BLOKHIN v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2012-02-07AXEL SPRINGER AG v. GERMANYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-05-20BLADET TROMSØ AND STENSAAS v. NORWAYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

27 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.

Albert-Engelmann- Gesellschaft mbH v. Austria, no. 46389/99Alves da Silva v. Portugal, no. 41665/07Antonov v. Bulgaria, no. 58364/10Arbeiter v. Austria, no. 3138/04Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06Boyadzhieva and Gloria International Limited EOOD v. Bulgaria, nos. 41299/09BULGARIA JUDGMENT and Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07Cholakov v. Bulgaria, no. 20147/06Eon v. France, no. 26118/10Gafiuc v. Romania, no. 59174/13Guseva v. Bulgaria, no. 6987/07Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01Karaahmed v. Bulgaria, no. 30587/13Konstantin Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 35399/05Leroy v. France, no. 36109/03Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07Others v. Turkey, no. 4524/06Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain, nos. 51168/15

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.