Strategic litigation, searchable.
51 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 U.N. v. RUSSIA (no. 14348/15)
Whether the applicant's removal to Kyrgyzstan would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture, and whether the domestic legal framework provided him with an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - 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)· 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 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2015· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF NABIL AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 62116/12)
Whether the applicants' detention pending expulsion and the subsequent expulsion by the Hungarian authorities were compatible with the right to liberty and security.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulement - 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)· 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 - 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