Strategic litigation, searchable.
19 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)· 2024favorable
CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 60778/19)
Whether the applicants' removal by Hungarian authorities constituted a collective expulsion of aliens in breach of the prohibition under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2024favorable
CASE OF M.A. AND Z.R. v. CYPRUS (no. 39090/20)
Whether Cyprus's expulsion of the applicants violated their rights under the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens and the right to an effective remedy.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - 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)· 2023favorable
CASE OF S.S. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 56417/19)
Whether the applicants' removal to Serbia would constitute a collective expulsion of aliens and expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF T.Z. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 41764/17)
Whether Poland has taken effective measures to prevent further violations of the applicants' rights following the Court's earlier finding of a violation.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF A.B. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 42907/17)
Whether the applicants' removal to Belarus would expose them to treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture, and whether the removal constituted a collective expulsion of aliens in breach of the Protocol.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - 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)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF A.I. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 39028/17)
Whether Poland fulfilled its obligation to comply with final judgments by taking measures to avoid further violations and by paying the amounts awarded in the judgment.
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)· 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 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)· 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 - European Court of Human Rights· 2019· ECtHR (Grand Chamber)favorableHigh precedent
Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary (GC), App No 47287/15 (2019)
Transit-zone confinement; removal to Serbia; procedural safeguards
asylumdetention-conditionsprocedural-safeguardsrefugeetransit-zones - South Africa· 2017· Constitutional Court of South AfricafavorableHigh precedent
Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs [2017] ZACC 22
Immigration detention safeguards; judicial oversight
asylumconstitutional-protectionsdetention-conditionsjudicial-oversightrefugee - 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 - European Court of Human Rights· 2011· ECtHR (Grand Chamber)favorableHigh precedent
M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (GC), App No 30696/09
Dublin transfer to Greece; reception & detention conditions; effective remedy
asylumdetention-conditionsdublin-transferseffective-remedyrefugee - 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