Strategic litigation, searchable.
80 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 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 SHIKSAITOV v. SLOVAKIA (no. 56751/16)
Whether the applicant's detention for extradition was lawful under the right to liberty and security and whether the lack of compensation for unlawful detention breached that right.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulement - 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 - United States· 2020· US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuitfavorable
Innovation Law Lab v Wolf, 951 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2020)
'Remain in Mexico' (MPP) policy; statutory authority; refoulement risk
asylumborder-externalizationnon-refoulementrefugeestatutory-authority - 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 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 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)· 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)· 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)· 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 - South Africa· 2018· Constitutional Court of South AfricafavorableHigh precedent
Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs [2018] ZACC 52
Right to apply for asylum; delays; non-refoulement; primacy of Refugees Act
asylumasylum-accessnon-refoulementprocedural-delaysrefugee - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2017· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF R.M. v. TURKEY (no. 81681/12)
Whether the applicant's deprivation of liberty complied with the right to liberty and security.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulement - 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 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 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 - 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 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)· 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