Strategic litigation, searchable.
43 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)· 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 RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF BIVOLARU AND MOLDOVAN v. FRANCE (no. 40324/16)
Whether the applicants were subjected to treatment that breaches the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2021· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 71321/17)
Whether the applicants' rights to life and prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment would be violated if they were expelled to Syria.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2021· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF K.I. v. FRANCE (no. 5560/19)
Whether the applicant’s removal to Russia would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - 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)· 2019· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF N.A. v. FINLAND (no. 25244/18)
Whether the applicant's expulsion from Finland to his home country would expose him to a real risk of death or torture, violating his right to life and the absolute prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2019· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF HAGHILO v. CYPRUS (no. 47920/12)
Whether Cyprus has taken sufficient measures to prevent new violations and to comply with the Court's judgment, satisfying the right to enforcement of judgments.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2018· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF M.A. AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA (no. 59793/17)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to Belarus would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture and whether they had an effective remedy to challenge that risk.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2018· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF S.Z. v. GREECE (no. 66702/13)
Whether Greece violated the applicant's rights under the prohibition of torture and the right to liberty and security by subjecting him to degrading treatment and by detaining him without lawful basis and without an effective judicial review.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2017· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF X v. SWITZERLAND (no. 16744/14)
Whether the applicant's expulsion to Sri Lanka would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2017· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 61411/15)
Whether the applicants' detention by the Russian authorities, aimed at preventing their unauthorised entry, violated their right to liberty and subjected them to treatment contrary to the absolute 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)· 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 - 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 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 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)· 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)· 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 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)· 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