Strategic litigation, searchable.
58 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)· 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 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 Rightsfavorable
CASE OF D.A. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 51246/17)
Whether Poland has taken sufficient individual and general measures to prevent further violations and has paid the compensation ordered, thereby complying with its duty to abide by the Court’s judgment (Article 46).
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2021· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF M.H. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA (no. 15670/18)
Whether the applicants' rights to life, protection from torture, liberty, freedom from collective expulsion, and access to the Court were violated.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - 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 - United States (District Court, District of Columbia)· 2020· District Court, District of Columbia
C.G.B. v. Wolf (Civil Action No. 2020-1072)
US court opinion from District Court, District of Columbia. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C.G.B. 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 20-cv-1072 (CRC) CHAD WOLF, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs, ten transgender women in the custody of I
united statesimmigration detention - 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 - United States (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)· 2020· Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jenny Flores v. Jeffrey Rosen, 984 F.3d 720
US court opinion from Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JENNY LISETTE FLORES, No. 19-56326 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:85-cv-04544- DMG-AGR JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General; CHAD F. WOLF; U.S.
united statesimmigration detention - 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 - United States (District Court, District of Columbia)· 2019· District Court, District of Columbia
I.A. v. Barr (Civil Action No. 2019-2530)
US court opinion from District Court, District of Columbia. LA. etal, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM BARR et al., Defendants. FILED AUG 21 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District and FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy Courts Case: 1:19-cv—02530 Assigned To : Kelly, Ti
united statesimmigration detention - 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 - Papua New Guinea· 2016· Supreme Court of Papua New GuineafavorableHigh precedent
Namah v Pato [2016] PGSC 13; SC1497
Legality of Australia's offshore detention of asylum seekers transferred to the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre under the Australia-PNG arrangement; right to personal liberty under s42 of the PNG Constitution.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionoffshore processing+1 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2016· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF KHLAIFIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY (no. 16483/12)
Whether Italy's treatment and expulsion of the applicants violated their rights to freedom and security, prohibition of torture, and protection from collective expulsion of aliens
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - 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 - 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