Strategic litigation, searchable.
14 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)· 2025adverse
CASE OF Z AND OTHERS v. FINLAND (no. 42758/23)
Whether Finland's measures violated the applicants' right to respect for private and family life.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2024adverse
CASE OF Y AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND (no. 9577/21)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to Albania would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the right to life under Article 2 and the prohibition of torture under Article 3.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2023adverse
CASE OF W.A. AND OTHERS v. ITALY (no. 18787/17)
Whether the proposed expulsion of the applicants to Sudan would expose them to a real risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 (the prohibition of torture).
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF KHASANOV AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA (no. 28492/15)
Whether the applicants' extradition to Kyrgyzstan would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture under Article 3.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF A.A. AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA (no. 55798/16)
Whether the applicants' removal from North Macedonia constituted a collective expulsion prohibited by the Convention and whether they had an effective remedy to challenge that measure.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF B AND C v. SWITZERLAND (no. 889/19)
Whether the Swiss authorities' removal of the applicants from Switzerland would constitute a disproportionate interference with their right to private and family life.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human RightsadverseHigh precedent
CASE OF N.D. AND N.T. v. SPAIN (no. 8675/15)
Whether Spain’s removal of the applicants without individual consideration violated the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2016· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF J.K. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN (no. 59166/12)
Whether the applicants' removal to Iraq would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Australia (National)· 2016· High Court of AustraliaadverseHigh precedent
Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] HCA 1
Constitutional validity of the Commonwealth's participation in and funding of the detention of asylum seekers at the Nauru Regional Processing Centre.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionoffshore processing+1 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2015· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF TATAR v. SWITZERLAND (no. 65692/12)
Whether the applicant’s expulsion to Turkey would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the Convention’s right to life and absolute prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Australia (National)· 2015· High Court of AustraliaadverseHigh precedent
CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 1
Lawfulness of detaining at sea, and taking towards another country, a group of Tamil asylum seekers intercepted en route to Australia.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentioninterception at sea+1 - Australia (National)· 2014· High Court of AustraliaadverseHigh precedent
Plaintiff S156/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 22
Validity of the designation of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country and the removal of asylum seekers there under the Migration Act.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionoffshore processing+1 - Australia (National)· 2004· High Court of AustraliaadverseHigh precedent
Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37
Whether a stateless person who cannot be removed from Australia may be detained indefinitely under the Migration Act.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionindefinite detention - Australia (National)· 2001· Federal Court of Australia (Full Court)adverseHigh precedent
Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329 (the Tampa case)
Whether the Commonwealth executive had power, absent statutory authority, to detain and remove asylum seekers rescued by the MV Tampa and prevent them entering Australia.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionexecutive power+1