Strategic litigation, searchable.
65 cases across 14 issue areas. Filter by topic, outcome, or precedent strength. Each profile is a starting point for adaptation, not a finishing line.
- Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2025favorable
CASE OF A.B. AND Y.W. v. MALTA (no. 2559/23)
Whether the applicants’ removal to China would expose them to a real risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 (the absolute prohibition of torture).
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2025favorable
CASE OF KUNSHUGAROV v. TÜRKİYE (no. 60811/15)
Whether Turkey's extradition of the applicant to a country where he faced a real risk of torture and the conditions of his detention violated the prohibition of torture and the right to liberty.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2024favorable
CASE OF M.A. AND Z.R. v. CYPRUS (no. 39090/20)
Whether Cyprus's expulsion of the applicants violated their rights under the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens and the right to an effective remedy.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2024favorable
CASE OF K.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 27584/20)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to North Korea would expose them to a real risk of death or torture, violating their right to life and the prohibition of inhuman treatment, and whether their pre‑expulsion detention in Russia complied with the right to liberty and security.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2024favorable
CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 60778/19)
Whether the applicants' removal by Hungarian authorities constituted a collective expulsion of aliens in breach of the prohibition under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2024favorable
CASE OF M.H. AND S.B. v. HUNGARY (no. 10940/17)
Whether the applicants' arrest and detention were lawful under the right to liberty and security.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulement - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2024favorable
CASE OF H.T. v. GERMANY AND GREECE (no. 13337/19)
Whether the applicant's treatment and expulsion would expose him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, thus violating the prohibition of torture
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2023favorable
CASE OF S.S. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 56417/19)
Whether the applicants' removal to Serbia would constitute a collective expulsion of aliens and expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2023favorable
CASE OF A.M.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS (no. 23048/19)
Whether the applicant's removal to Bahrain would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (the prohibition of torture).
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2023favorable
CASE OF ALHOWAIS v. HUNGARY (no. 59435/17)
Whether Hungary failed to comply with its obligations under the right to life and the prohibition of torture by not conducting an effective investigation and by not protecting the applicant’s right to life.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2023favorable
CASE OF ISRAILOV v. RUSSIA (no. 21882/09)
Whether the Russian authorities violated the applicant’s right to life, the prohibition of torture and the right to liberty, and whether they conducted an effective investigation into those alleged violations.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Australia (National)· 2023· High Court of AustraliafavorableHigh precedent
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37
Whether indefinite immigration detention of a non-citizen who cannot be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future is within Commonwealth power.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionindefinite detention - United Kingdom· 2023· UK Supreme CourtfavorableHigh precedent
R (AAA (Syria) & ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42
Safety of Rwanda, third country removals; non-refoulement; systemic risks
asylumnon-refoulementrefugeesystemic-deficienciesthird-country-transfers - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF O.M. AND D.S. v. UKRAINE (no. 18603/12)
Whether the applicants' removal to Kyrgyzstan would breach the prohibition of torture and whether the authorities unlawfully hindered their right to bring an individual application.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022favorable
CASE OF W.A. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 64050/16)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to Serbia would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022favorable
CASE OF S.H. v. MALTA (no. 37241/21)
Whether the applicant's proposed expulsion to Bangladesh would expose him to a real risk of torture and deprive him of an effective remedy, contrary to the prohibition of torture and the right to an effective remedy.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF A.I. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 39028/17)
Whether Poland fulfilled its obligation to comply with final judgments by taking measures to avoid further violations and by paying the amounts awarded in the judgment.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF A.B. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 42907/17)
Whether the applicants' removal to Belarus would expose them to treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture, and whether the removal constituted a collective expulsion of aliens in breach of the Protocol.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF T.Z. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 41764/17)
Whether Poland has taken effective measures to prevent further violations of the applicants' rights following the Court's earlier finding of a violation.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF H.F. AND OTHERS v. FRANCE (no. 24384/19)
Whether the French authorities’ refusal to allow the applicants, who are French nationals, to return to France violated their right not to be expelled from their own country under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4