Strategic litigation, searchable.
11 cases across 14 issue areas. Filter by topic, outcome, or precedent strength. Each profile is a starting point for adaptation, not a finishing line.
- European Court of Human Rights· 2026· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
K.A. v. Austria
Whether the applicant's detention as a person of unsound mind and the availability of judicial review of that detention satisfied the right to liberty and security.
human-rightsliberty-and-security - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2025adverse
CASE OF Z AND OTHERS v. FINLAND (no. 42758/23)
Whether Finland's measures violated the applicants' right to respect for private and family life.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2024adverse
CASE OF Y AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND (no. 9577/21)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to Albania would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the right to life under Article 2 and the prohibition of torture under Article 3.
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)· 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)· 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)· 2020· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF B AND C v. SWITZERLAND (no. 889/19)
Whether the Swiss authorities' removal of the applicants from Switzerland would constitute a disproportionate interference with their right to private and family life.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF ASADY AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA (no. 24917/15)
Whether the applicants' removal would constitute a collective expulsion of aliens contrary to the prohibition on collective expulsion.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human RightsadverseHigh precedent
CASE OF N.D. AND N.T. v. SPAIN (no. 8675/15)
Whether Spain’s removal of the applicants without individual consideration violated the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - 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)· 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