Strategic litigation, searchable.
17 cases across 14 issue areas. Filter by topic, outcome, or precedent strength. Each profile is a starting point for adaptation, not a finishing line.
- United Kingdom· 2023· UK Supreme CourtfavorableHigh precedent
R (AAA (Syria) & ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42
Safety of Rwanda, third country removals; non-refoulement; systemic risks
asylumnon-refoulementrefugeesystemic-deficienciesthird-country-transfers - Australia (National)· 2023· High Court of AustraliafavorableHigh precedent
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37
Whether indefinite immigration detention of a non-citizen who cannot be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future is within Commonwealth power.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionindefinite detention - 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 - 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 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 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 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 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 - 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 - South Africa· 2018· Constitutional Court of South AfricafavorableHigh precedent
Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs [2018] ZACC 52
Right to apply for asylum; delays; non-refoulement; primacy of Refugees Act
asylumasylum-accessnon-refoulementprocedural-delaysrefugee - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2017· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 61411/15)
Whether the applicants' detention by the Russian authorities, aimed at preventing their unauthorised entry, violated their right to liberty and subjected them to treatment contrary to the absolute prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - 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 - 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 - 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) - 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