BIELAU v. AUSTRIA

2024-08-27 · European Court of Human Rights · Council of Europe

read the judgment

8What it rests on

1Relied 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.

20251 judgments

1 judgments have relied on it, across 2025

first 2025 · last 2025 · busiest 2025 (1 judgments)

2025-04-29AVAGYAN v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rights×2

What it rests on

2023-07-04HURBAIN v. BELGIUMEuropean Court of Human Rights 2023-05-15SANCHEZ v. FRANCEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2022-03-15OOO MEMO v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2015-06-16DELFI AS v. ESTONIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2007-10-22LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS AND JULY v. FRANCEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-10-28WILLE v. LIECHTENSTEINEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1991-05-23OBERSCHLICK v. AUSTRIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1986-07-08LINGENS v. AUSTRIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

1 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.

Frankowicz v. Poland, no. 53025/99

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.