Strategic litigation, searchable.
192 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 - 9th Circuit· 2024· 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
138 F.4th 1102
The application of the Asylum Transit Rule was at stake, requiring persons to apply for asylum in transit countries. This rule has significant implications for asylum seekers and refugee policies.
refugeeasylum - United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)· 2024· United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Gurung, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ACRS meaning - policy interpretation principles)
The case concerns the interpretation of the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) policy and principles of policy interpretation in immigration matters.
refugeeasylumimmigration - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2024
CASE OF SHEROV AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 54029/17)
Whether Poland complied with the Court's judgment by providing adequate information on measures to prevent new violations and by paying the compensation awarded.
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 - Northern Territory, Australia· 2023· NT Supreme CourtfavorableHigh precedent
Dylan Voller Settlement with NT Government (2023)
Compensation for mistreatment in Don Dale
compensationdon-dalentsettlement - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2023favorable
CASE OF ALHOWAIS v. HUNGARY (no. 59435/17)
Whether Hungary failed to comply with its obligations under the right to life and the prohibition of torture by not conducting an effective investigation and by not protecting the applicant’s right to life.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - 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 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2023favorable
CASE OF A.M.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS (no. 23048/19)
Whether the applicant's removal to Bahrain would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (the prohibition of torture).
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2023adverse
CASE OF W.A. AND OTHERS v. ITALY (no. 18787/17)
Whether the proposed expulsion of the applicants to Sudan would expose them to a real risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 (the prohibition of torture).
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2023favorable
CASE OF ISRAILOV v. RUSSIA (no. 21882/09)
Whether the Russian authorities violated the applicant’s right to life, the prohibition of torture and the right to liberty, and whether they conducted an effective investigation into those alleged violations.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF A.A. AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA (no. 55798/16)
Whether the applicants' removal from North Macedonia constituted a collective expulsion prohibited by the Convention and whether they had an effective remedy to challenge that measure.
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)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF O.M. AND D.S. v. UKRAINE (no. 18603/12)
Whether the applicants' removal to Kyrgyzstan would breach the prohibition of torture and whether the authorities unlawfully hindered their right to bring an individual application.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - 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)· 2022favorable
CASE OF S.H. v. MALTA (no. 37241/21)
Whether the applicant's proposed expulsion to Bangladesh would expose him to a real risk of torture and deprive him of an effective remedy, contrary to the prohibition of torture and the right to an effective remedy.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF KHASANOV AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA (no. 28492/15)
Whether the applicants' extradition to Kyrgyzstan would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture under Article 3.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2022favorable
CASE OF W.A. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 64050/16)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to Serbia would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - 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