Strategic litigation, searchable.
220 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)· 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 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)· 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 - 6th Circuit· 2022· United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
29 F.4th 763
The case involved derivative family members granted asylum in the United States.
asylumrefugee - 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 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)· 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 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 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)· 2021· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II) (no. 38263/08)
Whether the Russian Federation breached its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by violating the applicants' rights to life, freedom from torture, liberty, private and family life, protection of property, and freedom of movement during the 2008 conflict.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - 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 - 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 - 8th Circuit· 2021· 8th Circuit
11 F.4th 834
The case involved a fourteen-year-old orphan who was welcomed as a refugee in Minnesota and later experienced homelessness.
refugeeasylum - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2021· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF M.L. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 25079/19)
Whether the applicants' pre‑expulsion detention was lawful and whether they had an adequate mechanism to challenge its lawfulness under the right to liberty and security.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulement - 2nd Circuit· 2021
Quintanilla v. Garland
Case addressing the principle that no State shall expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where they face persecution.
refugeeasylum - 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 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