Strategic litigation, searchable.
182 cases across 14 issue areas. Filter by topic, outcome, or precedent strength. Each profile is a starting point for adaptation, not a finishing line.
- D.D.C.· 2021· D.D.C.
Huisha-Huisha v. Gaynor
Asylum-seeking families who fled to the United States were at stake, with their right to seek asylum in the US being challenged.
asylumrefugee - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2021· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF BIVOLARU AND MOLDOVAN v. FRANCE (no. 40324/16)
Whether the applicants were subjected to treatment that breaches the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - 9th Cir.· 2021
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Joseph Biden
The case challenges a presidential proclamation that strips asylum eligibility, which is at stake for asylum seekers.
refugeeasylum - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2021· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF SHAHZAD v. HUNGARY (no. 12625/17)
Whether the applicant’s removal by Hungary violated the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens and denied him an effective remedy.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2021· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF SAVRAN v. DENMARK (no. 57467/15)
Whether expelling the applicant to Turkey would breach the prohibition of torture or the right to private and family life.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2021· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 71321/17)
Whether the applicants' rights to life and prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment would be violated if they were expelled to Syria.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2021· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF K.I. v. FRANCE (no. 5560/19)
Whether the applicant’s removal to Russia would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF M.K. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 40503/17)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to a country where they faced a real risk of torture would breach the prohibition of torture, the right to an effective remedy, and the prohibition of collective expulsion.
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 - United States· 2020· US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuitfavorable
Innovation Law Lab v Wolf, 951 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2020)
'Remain in Mexico' (MPP) policy; statutory authority; refoulement risk
asylumborder-externalizationnon-refoulementrefugeestatutory-authority - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF ASADY AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA (no. 24917/15)
Whether the applicants' removal would constitute a collective expulsion of aliens contrary to the prohibition on collective expulsion.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF SHIKSAITOV v. SLOVAKIA (no. 56751/16)
Whether the applicant's detention for extradition was lawful under the right to liberty and security and whether the lack of compensation for unlawful detention breached that right.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulement - 9th Cir.· 2020
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. William Barr
Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications
refugeeasylum - D.D.C.· 2020
A.B.-b v. Morgan
Children from Honduras, Ecuador, and Mexico seek asylum in the United States based on fears of kidnapping and violence
refugeeasylum - 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 - Court of Appeal of Douai· 2019· Court of Appeal of Douaifavorable
X v. Prefect of Pas de Calais, No RG19/00334
The case concerned the refusal of an extension of administrative detention and the release of an applicant due to the lack of examination of their vulnerability by a medical doctor.
refugeeasylumdetention - European Court of Human Rights· 2019· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
A.A. v. Switzerland
The case revolves around the assessment of persecution for religious purposes in the country of origin, specifically focusing on how an applicant's faith practices would be impacted upon return.
refugeeasylumreligious-persecution - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2019· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF N.A. v. FINLAND (no. 25244/18)
Whether the applicant's expulsion from Finland to his home country would expose him to a real risk of death or torture, violating his right to life and the absolute prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2019· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF HAGHILO v. CYPRUS (no. 47920/12)
Whether Cyprus has taken sufficient measures to prevent new violations and to comply with the Court's judgment, satisfying the right to enforcement of judgments.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - European Court of Human Rights· 2019· ECtHR (Grand Chamber)favorableHigh precedent
Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary (GC), App No 47287/15 (2019)
Transit-zone confinement; removal to Serbia; procedural safeguards
asylumdetention-conditionsprocedural-safeguardsrefugeetransit-zones