Justice Matrix · Issues
Vulnerability and special procedural protection
How does the law treat asylum seekers who are children, survivors of torture, or otherwise at heightened risk?
The procedural-protection thread that runs through the asylum and Article 3 records, gathered as one issue.
30 cases2 campaigns2011–2026
20112026
The Law30
FavorablehighVerified
Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary (GC), App No 47287/15 (2019)
ECtHR (Grand Chamber) · 2019
FavorablehighVerified
Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs [2017] ZACC 22
Constitutional Court of South Africa · 2017
FavorablehighVerified
M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (GC), App No 30696/09
ECtHR (Grand Chamber) · 2011
anchorFavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF J.B. v. GREECE (no. 54796/16)
2026
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF A.R.E. v. GREECE (no. 15783/21)
2025
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF BIVOLARU AND MOLDOVAN v. FRANCE (no. 40324/16)
European Court of Human Rights · 2021
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF M.K. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 40503/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2020
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF Y.K. v. CROATIA (no. 38776/21)
2025
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF H.A. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 39498/18)
2025
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF H.T. v. GERMANY AND GREECE (no. 13337/19)
2024
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF M.A. AND Z.R. v. CYPRUS (no. 39090/20)
2024
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF K.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 27584/20)
2024
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF A.M.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS (no. 23048/19)
2023
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF S.S. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 56417/19)
2023
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF ISRAILOV v. RUSSIA (no. 21882/09)
2023
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF W.A. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 64050/16)
2022
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF A.B. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 42907/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2022
AdverselowNeeds review
CASE OF A.A. AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA (no. 55798/16)
European Court of Human Rights · 2022
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF A.I. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 39028/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2022
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF D.A. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 51246/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2021
AdverselowNeeds review
CASE OF B AND C v. SWITZERLAND (no. 889/19)
European Court of Human Rights · 2020
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF HAGHILO v. CYPRUS (no. 47920/12)
European Court of Human Rights · 2019
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF N.A. v. FINLAND (no. 25244/18)
European Court of Human Rights · 2019
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF M.A. AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA (no. 59793/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2018
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF X v. SWITZERLAND (no. 16744/14)
European Court of Human Rights · 2017
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF BABAJANOV v. TURKEY (no. 49867/08)
European Court of Human Rights · 2016
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF F.G. v. SWEDEN (no. 43611/11)
European Court of Human Rights · 2016
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF V.M. AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM (no. 60125/11)
European Court of Human Rights · 2015
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF L.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 40081/14)
European Court of Human Rights · 2015
FavorableNeeds review
J.B. and Others v. Malta (no. 1766/23)
2024
The Movement2
The People0
Lived-experience accounts for this issue are not in the matrix yet. Contribute one.
What the courts held
The doctrine, in the courts’ own holdings.
Held for protection (28)
“Found violations linked to inadequate assessment of risk on return to Serbia; guidance on Article 3/13 standards in border zones.”
Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary (GC), App No 47287/15 (2019) (2019)Verified
“Sections authorising prolonged detention without prompt judicial review unconstitutional; strengthened safeguards for non-nationals.”
Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs [2017] ZACC 22 (2017)Verified
“Violations of Articles 3 and 13 due to conditions and procedural deficiencies; landmark on reception standards and transfer suspensions.”
M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (GC), App No 30696/09 (2011)Verified
“The Court held that the applicant's removal would expose him to a real risk of torture or degrading treatment, violating the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, while finding no violation of the ri…”
CASE OF J.B. v. GREECE (no. 54796/16) (2026)Needs review
Held against (2)
“The Court held that there was no violation of the prohibition of collective expulsion and no violation of the right to an effective remedy, dismissing the complaints.”
CASE OF A.A. AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA (no. 55798/16) (2022)Needs review
“The Court concluded that the Swiss authorities' actions did not breach the applicants' right to private and family life, finding the interference justified and proportionate under the Convention.”
CASE OF B AND C v. SWITZERLAND (no. 889/19) (2020)Needs review
Playbook
What worked, what failed, what is reusable.
The pattern. Heightened-risk applicants (children, survivors of torture, the seriously ill) attract extra procedural protection. This issue gathers the real records carrying these tags.
What to look for. Whether an individual vulnerability assessment was made, whether that assessment changed the procedure, and how the protection claim connected to the non-refoulement question.
This is a research resource, not legal advice. Read the linked source before acting on it.
Research resource, not legal advice. Read the original source before acting. Cases and campaigns are gathered by shared issue tags; some may be machine-extracted and pending human review.