Strategic litigation, searchable.
89 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)· 2014· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF TARAKHEL v. SWITZERLAND (no. 29217/12)
Whether Switzerland has complied with its obligation under Article 46 to provide information on measures taken to prevent new violations and to pay the sums awarded.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Hong Kong· 2013· Hong Kong Court of Final AppealfavorableHigh precedent
C v Director of Immigration [2013] HKCFA 21; (2013) 16 HKCFAR 280 (FACV 18-20/2011)
Whether the duty to assess risk before removal extends beyond torture to a well-founded fear of persecution, when UNHCR (not the government) conducts refugee status determination in Hong Kong.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementtorture (CAT) - Hong Kong· 2012· Hong Kong Court of Final AppealfavorableHigh precedent
Ubamaka Edward Wilson v Secretary for Security (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743; [2012] HKCFA 87
Whether the protection against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (article 3 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, reflecting ICCPR article 7) is absolute, and whether the Director must assess that risk before removal.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementtorture (CAT) - United Kingdom / EU context· 2011· CJEU (Grand Chamber)favorableHigh precedent
N.S. v SSHD; M.E. and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner (Joined Cases C-411/10 & C-493/10)
Dublin transfers; systemic deficiencies test; suspending transfers
asylumdublin-transfersnon-refoulementrefugeesystemic-deficiencies - 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 - Hong Kong· 2004· Hong Kong Court of Final AppealfavorableHigh precedent
Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187
Standard of fairness required when the government assesses whether removing a person would expose them to a risk of torture (non-refoulement under the Convention against Torture).
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementtorture (CAT) - 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 - International (UN Human Rights Committee)· 1997· UN Human Rights CommitteefavorableHigh precedent
A v Australia, Communication No. 560/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993
Whether prolonged mandatory immigration detention of an asylum seeker (over three years) breached the prohibition on arbitrary detention and the right to judicial review of detention under ICCPR article 9.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionarbitrary detention+1 - United States· 1993· US Supreme CourtadverseHigh precedent
Sale v Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993)
High-seas interdiction; scope of non-refoulement under INA & Refugee Convention
asylumextraterritorial-jurisdictionnon-refoulementpushbacksrefugee