Strategic litigation, searchable.

CASE OF A.B. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 42907/17)

Whether the applicants' removal to Belarus would expose them to treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture, and whether the removal constituted a collective expulsion of aliens in breach of the Protocol.

CASE OF A.I. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 39028/17)

Whether Poland fulfilled its obligation to comply with final judgments by taking measures to avoid further violations and by paying the amounts awarded in the judgment.

CASE OF S.H. v. MALTA (no. 37241/21)

Whether the applicant's proposed expulsion to Bangladesh would expose him to a real risk of torture and deprive him of an effective remedy, contrary to the prohibition of torture and the right to an effective remedy.

CASE OF T.Z. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 41764/17)

Whether Poland has taken effective measures to prevent further violations of the applicants' rights following the Court's earlier finding of a violation.

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.

CASE OF O.M. AND D.S. v. UKRAINE (no. 18603/12)

Whether the applicants' removal to Kyrgyzstan would breach the prohibition of torture and whether the authorities unlawfully hindered their right to bring an individual application.

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).

CASE OF SAVRAN v. DENMARK (no. 57467/15)

Whether expelling the applicant to Turkey would breach the prohibition of torture or the right to private and family life.

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.

CASE OF M.H. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA (no. 15670/18)

Whether the applicants' rights to life, protection from torture, liberty, freedom from collective expulsion, and access to the Court were violated.

CASE OF SHAHZAD v. HUNGARY (no. 12625/17)

Whether the applicant’s removal by Hungary violated the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens and denied him an effective remedy.

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.

Voller v Northern Territory (2021) HCA

Duty of care for children in detention

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.

CASE OF M.L. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 25079/19)

Whether the applicants' pre‑expulsion detention was lawful and whether they had an adequate mechanism to challenge its lawfulness under the right to liberty and security.

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.

Innovation Law Lab v Wolf, 951 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2020)

'Remain in Mexico' (MPP) policy; statutory authority; refoulement risk

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.

R v Blessington (2020) QCA

Youth sentencing principles

Tanya Day Coronial Inquest 2020