Contract

the citation graph

CYPRUS v. TURKEY

2001-05-10 · European Court of Human Rights · Council of Europe

read the judgment

2What it rests on

34Relied 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.

+12 earlier20212 judgments20222 judgments20234 judgments20242 judgments20252 judgments20261 judgments

34 judgments have relied on it, across 2003–2026

first 2003 · last 2026 · busiest 2023 (4 judgments)

2026-01-15BILIŃSKI v. POLANDEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2025-07-09UKRAINE AND THE NETHERLANDS v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2025-06-10K.V. MEDITERRANEAN TOURS LIMITED v. TÜRKİYEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2024-12-17TAGANOVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2024-06-25UKRAINE v. RUSSIA (RE CRIMEA)European Court of Human Rights×2followed 2023-12-19MATKAVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2023-05-02S.P. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2023-04-28GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II)European Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2023-01-24SVETOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2022-06-23GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLICEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2022-05-17OGANEZOVA v. ARMENIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2021-12-16WOMEN'S INITIATIVES SUPPORTING GROUP AND OTHERS v. GEORGIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2021-09-21CARTER v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2020-10-15MUHAMMAD AND MUHAMMAD v. ROMANIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2020-01-28ALİ RIZA AND OTHERS v. TURKEYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2019-06-18CHERNEGA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2019-01-29GÜZELYURTLU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND TURKEYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2018-11-06BURLYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2018-03-15NAÏT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLANDEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2017-12-19LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGALEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2017-11-28MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2017-04-04GÜZELYURTLU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND TURKEYEuropean Court of Human Rights 2015-10-22KHALIKOVA v. AZERBAIJANEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2015-06-16SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJANEuropean Court of Human Rights×2followed 2014-07-17SVINARENKO AND SLYADNEV v. RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2014-05-12CYPRUS v. TURKEYEuropean Court of Human Rights 2013-11-07VALLIANATOS AND OTHERS v. GREECEEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2012-11-13HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA European Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2010-09-10McFARLANE v. IRELANDEuropean Court of Human Rights 2009-12-22SEJDIĆ AND FINCI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINAEuropean Court of Human Rights 2009-09-18VARNAVA AND OTHERS v. TURKEYEuropean Court of Human Rights 2004-07-08ILAŞCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 2004-04-08ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIAEuropean Court of Human Rights×2followed 2003-10-09SLIVENKO v. LATVIAEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed

What it rests on

2000-06-27SALMAN v. TURKEYEuropean Court of Human Rightsfollowed 1999-07-08ÇAKICI v. TURKEYEuropean 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.