Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2023, 15:20 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Selected filters: Non-refoulement
Showing 1-10 of 299 results
X v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid Case C‑69/21

The Court adopted the view that a return decision or removal order does not infringe the right to respect for the private life of a third-country national concerned on the sole ground that, if he or she were returned to the receiving country, that national would be exposed to the risk that his or her state of health deteriorates, where such a risk does not reach the severity threshold required under Article 4 of the Charter. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that the national's state of health and the care received must be considered by the competent national authority, along with other relevant factors (such as social ties, dependency, and health fragility), when determining whether the national's right to respect for private life precludes removal.

22 November 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2008 Returns Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Border controls - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Right to health | Countries: Netherlands - Russian Federation

B.T.M. v. Suisse

The Swiss authorities' decision to return a Zimbabwean national to his country of origin violated Article 3 of the Convention against Torture. The right to an effective remedy contained in Article 3 requires an opportunity for an effective, independent and impartial review of the decision to expel or return when there is a plausible allegation that issues under Article 3 arise.

11 November 2022 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Convention against Torture (CAT) - Non-refoulement | Countries: Switzerland

Case of O.M. and D.S. v. Ukraine (Application no. 18603/12)

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,Joins to the merits the Government’s objection as to the first applicant’s victim status regarding her complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and rejects it; Declares the first applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning her removal from Ukraine and the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard admissible and the applicants’ remaining complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 13 inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the first applicant’s complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention

15 September 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Non-refoulement - Rejection at border | Countries: Kyrgyzstan - Ukraine


Confirmed on 8 September 2022. The english-language version is an unofficial translation. The Korean-language original is attached.

18 August 2022 | Judicial Body: Republic of Korea: Seoul Administrative Court | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Non-refoulement | Countries: Korea, Republic of

CASE OF SHENTURK AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 41326/17 and other applications – see appended list)

10 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Extradition - Non-refoulement | Countries: Azerbaijan - Türkiye


Austrian Constitutional Court examined the international protection needs of a healthy man from Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover

16 December 2021 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Country of origin information (COI) - Non-refoulement | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 71321/17 and 9 others – see appended list)

Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain that their expulsion to Syria would put them at grave physical risk. Some of the applicants also complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 that their detention pending removal was arbitrary and the examination of their complaints against detention orders was not speedy.

14 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Right to life | Countries: Russian Federation - Syrian Arab Republic

D.Z. v. Switzerland

Examination of the same matter under another procedure of international investigation or settlement; non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Risk of torture upon return to country of origin; non-refoulement

31 August 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Legal Instrument: 1984 Convention against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement | Countries: China - Switzerland

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al., v. William P. Barr ("East Bay Sanctuary (II)")

6 July 2020 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Topic(s): Asylum policy - Entry / Exit - Non-refoulement - Right to seek asylum | Countries: United States of America

Esther Segai Gersagher et al. v. the Knesset et al.

The Court is requested to order the voidness of section 4 of the Prevention of Infiltration and Ensuring the Departure of Infiltrators from Israel 5775-2014 (Legislative Amendments and Temporary Provisions) 5775-2014 (hereinafter: the "Amending Law") that obliges foreign workers who entered Israel not through a border crossing (hereinafter: "Infiltrator Workers") and their employers to deposit in a special bank account a total amount at a rate of 36% of the worker's wages that will be paid to the worker only at the time of his departure from Israel (hereinafter: the "Deposit Scheme"). In short, the Petitioners argue that the Deposit Scheme, in general, or in the least some of its components, is unconstitutional and therefore should be voided.

23 April 2020 | Judicial Body: Israel: High Court of Justice | Topic(s): Administrative law - Asylum-seekers - Constitutional law - Illegal entry - Non-refoulement | Countries: Eritrea - Israel - Sudan

Search Refworld