Strategic litigation, searchable.
12 cases across 14 issue areas. Filter by topic, outcome, or precedent strength. Each profile is a starting point for adaptation, not a finishing line.
- European Court of Human Rights· 2026· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
K.A. v. Austria
Whether the applicant's detention as a person of unsound mind and the availability of judicial review of that detention satisfied the right to liberty and security.
human-rightsliberty-and-security - 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 - Australia (National)· 2024· UN Human Rights Counciladverseinquiry
UN Special Rapporteur Visit to Australia — Detention Conditions (2024)
International inspection of Australian detention facilities
detention-conditionshuman-rightsinternationalun - 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 - Australia (National)· 2019· UN Committee on the Rights of the ChildadverseHigh precedentreport
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Report on Australia (2019)
International review of Australia's youth justice
crchuman-rightsinternational-lawun - 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 - 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