Strategic litigation, searchable.
57 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)· 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 - 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 - 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 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)· 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 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)· 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 NABIL AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 62116/12)
Whether the applicants' detention pending expulsion and the subsequent expulsion by the Hungarian authorities were compatible with the right to liberty and security.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulement - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2014· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF AL NASHIRI v. POLAND (no. 28761/11)
Whether Poland’s actions regarding the applicant’s arrest, detention, rendition and exposure to the death penalty violated his rights under the Convention, particularly the prohibition of torture, the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial, the right to private and family life, the right to an effective remedy and the right to life.
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 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2014· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. POLAND (no. 7511/13)
Whether Poland's actions violated the applicant's rights, including the prohibition of torture and the right to liberty and security
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Hong Kong· 2013· Hong Kong Court of Final AppealfavorableHigh precedent
C v Director of Immigration [2013] HKCFA 21; (2013) 16 HKCFAR 280 (FACV 18-20/2011)
Whether the duty to assess risk before removal extends beyond torture to a well-founded fear of persecution, when UNHCR (not the government) conducts refugee status determination in Hong Kong.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementtorture (CAT) - Hong Kong· 2012· Hong Kong Court of Final AppealfavorableHigh precedent
Ubamaka Edward Wilson v Secretary for Security (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743; [2012] HKCFA 87
Whether the protection against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (article 3 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, reflecting ICCPR article 7) is absolute, and whether the Director must assess that risk before removal.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementtorture (CAT) - United Kingdom / EU context· 2011· CJEU (Grand Chamber)favorableHigh precedent
N.S. v SSHD; M.E. and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner (Joined Cases C-411/10 & C-493/10)
Dublin transfers; systemic deficiencies test; suspending transfers
asylumdublin-transfersnon-refoulementrefugeesystemic-deficiencies - Hong Kong· 2004· Hong Kong Court of Final AppealfavorableHigh precedent
Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187
Standard of fairness required when the government assesses whether removing a person would expose them to a risk of torture (non-refoulement under the Convention against Torture).
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementtorture (CAT) - 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