Strategic litigation, searchable.
97 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)· 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)· 2016· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF F.G. v. SWEDEN (no. 43611/11)
Whether the applicant's removal to Iran would conflict with Sweden's obligations under the right to life and the prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2016· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF BABAJANOV v. TURKEY (no. 49867/08)
Whether expelling the applicant to Iran would expose him to a real risk of torture, and whether his detention and the information given to him breached his right to liberty and security.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - 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 - 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 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2015· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF V.M. AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM (no. 60125/11)
Whether Belgium violated the applicants' rights under the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and whether they had an effective remedy for that breach.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2015· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF L.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 40081/14)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to Syria would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the right to life and the prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - 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 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2015· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF S.J. v. BELGIUM (no. 70055/10)
Whether the applicant's expulsion to Nigeria would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture, and whether he had an effective remedy to challenge that risk.
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 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2014· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. POLAND (no. 7511/13)
Whether Poland's actions violated the applicant's rights, including the prohibition of torture and the right to liberty and security
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - 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 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2014· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF AL NASHIRI v. POLAND (no. 28761/11)
Whether Poland’s actions regarding the applicant’s arrest, detention, rendition and exposure to the death penalty violated his rights under the Convention, particularly the prohibition of torture, the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial, the right to private and family life, the right to an effective remedy and the right to life.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - 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 - 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