Strategic Litigation
Strategic Litigation
Asylum laws are strict. But what happens when strict rules become unfair or even dangerous? That’s where we step in. The Dutch Council for Refugees, alongside expert lawyers, takes legal action to protect the rights of asylum seekers. Sometimes, this means challenging unfair policies in Dutch courts. Other times, we take cases all the way to the highest European and international courts.
What is Strategic Litigation?
Refugees often face harsh treatment due to national policies or actions by border guards. When this happens, we take legal action to challenge these injustices. Since courts often cannot address general policies, we carefully select individual cases that can set legal precedents and lead to broader changes.
We work with partner organizations across Europe, especially at the borders, to monitor violations and hold authorities accountable. If laws are broken, we take the case to national courts, the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or other international bodies.
We frequently provide third-party interventions – expert legal opinions submitted to courts – to support key human rights cases. These are often drafted in collaboration with The AIRE Centre in London, the European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) in Brussels, and the International Commission for Jurists (ICJ), which sits in Geneva. In other cases, we work alongside our European partners, including the Centre for Peace Studies in Croatia, Irídia in Spain, and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee.
How it works
A successful lawsuit does not only help the refugee concerned, but above all serves a collective interest. After all, a single ruling can significantly improve the protection of refugees.
How does that work? Judgments of the highest national courts are binding for all asylum seekers and refugees in the Netherlands. In other words, no appeal is possible. Nor can an appeal be lodged against a ruling of a European court. This gives such judgments great weight and has far-reaching consequences for the protection of refugees throughout Europe.
Help out and make a donation!
With your support, we can continue handling asylum cases for people who are forced to seek protection in other countries. Thank you so much!
What we have achieved
Through the Strategic Litigation programme, we have already achieved several successes at both national and international level, including for LGBTQIA+ refugees, political refugees and unaccompanied minors. Here are four
1. LGBTQIA+ refugees don't have to hide who they are
A major success of our Strategic Litigation programme concerned three homosexual men seeking asylum in the Netherlands. In their country of origin, they faced imprisonment because of their sexual orientation. The Dutch authorities argued that they could return safely if they concealed their identity and intended to deport them.
Together with partner organisations, we challenged this position before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court delivered a landmark judgment: no refugee should be required to hide their identity in order to avoid persecution.
As a result, these men – and other LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers in similar situations – are now granted the protection to which they are entitled.
2. Improved access to asylum for political refugees
Until 2023, the Netherlands required that a refugee’s political beliefs form a fundamental part of their identity. As a result, many political refugees who faced persecution because of their beliefs were nevertheless denied asylum.
We supported a case before the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning a woman from Sudan. While in the Netherlands, she was politically active in various organisations, participated in demonstrations against the Sudanese government, encouraged other women to join, and expressed criticism on social media.
The Strategic Litigation Committee of the Dutch Council for Refugees worked closely with her lawyer. In 2023, the Court ruled that the Netherlands applied excessively strict requirements to such claims.
This judgment ensures that political refugees are now granted protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention.
3. Court declares conditions in Moria refugee camp inhumane
For years, the Moria refugee camp in Greece was severely overcrowded and lacked basic necessities. The camp became widely known after large numbers of refugees were held there following the EU-Turkey deal. In 2020, a major fire destroyed the camp, leaving many without shelter.
The Dutch Council for Refugees, together with partners, submitted a third-party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights. The intervention emphasised that States must ensure reception conditions and procedures that respect human dignity. It highlighted the lack of shelter and medical care, as well as prolonged asylum procedures leading to extended family separation.
In 2023, the Court ruled that the conditions in Moria amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment.
4. Frontex can be held accountable for unlawful return operations
For years, Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, was considered to merely assist EU Member States, which made accountability for its role in unlawful operations difficult.
The Strategic Litigation team of the Dutch Council for Refugees supported a case concerning a Syrian family who were unlawfully returned by plane from Greece to Türkiye on a flight operated by Frontex. The case was brought before the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
In a landmark ruling, the Court confirmed for the first time that Frontex can be held legally responsible for failing to comply with its own obligations. The judgment was issued in a context of ongoing large-scale pushbacks at Europe’s external borders.
As the “eyes and ears” of the European Union, Frontex plays a central role in safeguarding fundamental rights, a role that will further expand with the application of the new EU Migration Pact in June 2026.
We continue the fight
Refugee rights are under constant threat. They often have to bear the blame in order to deflect from unpopular political, economic or social developments. New policies continue to push the boundaries of what is legal - or even outright violate EU and international law. Now more than ever, turning to the courts is essential.