Strategic litigation, searchable.
12 cases across 14 issue areas. Filter by topic, outcome, or precedent strength. Each profile is a starting point for adaptation, not a finishing line.
- 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)· 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)· 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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