On 1 August the Irish High Court found that the State failed to vindicate the rights of a particular class of International Protection Applicants (‘IPAs’) under EU law, as their basic human rights were not met. Of primary concern in the case was the inability of the State to meet the accommodation and services needs of some IPAs, and whether the approach resorted to by the State is adequate.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (‘IHREC’) brought three judicial review proceedings against the State in respect of IPAs who were not provided accommodation by the State due to a lack of capacity. It follows litigation taken by the Irish Refugee Council’s independent law centre in April and December 2023, and high court decisions in the cases of S.Y. and S.A. and A.J.
As a result of inadequate resources, the State has prioritised certain categories of IPA’s, meaning that many single male IPA’s are receiving a lower standard of reception. Upon arrival, IPAs generally receive accommodation, access to food and hygiene services and supplemental daily expenses money (sometimes facilitating discretionary extra payments for particular needs). However, those concerned in this judgement have not been provided with accommodation, and the State has alternatively increased their allowance for daily expenses and given additional resources including vouchers, information services and day services.
In its judgment, the court emphasised that basic needs go beyond housing and include food, personal hygiene and clothing. Although the State’s day services do aim to meet an adequate level of services, the IHREC proved that the current services are not enough, such that those who combine their payments and services will still have “to make an unacceptable choice between food, clothing or hygiene.” The court noted that as a result of these conditions, “those persons are left in a deeply vulnerable and frightening position that undermines their human dignity.” Thus, it was found that Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU was breached, with the court referencing the clear and unequivocal findings by the CJEU in Saciri and Haqbin about human rights being breached when basic needs are not met.
The court held that the justice of the case required that declaratory relief be granted but not mandatory relief. While it was acknowledged that the State is actively aiming to provide adequate services, the court set out that the State is compelled to vindicate the human rights of unaccommodated IPAs.
Commenting on the outcome, Head of Legal at the IHREC, Michael O’Neill, said,
“Not only has the court clarified important points of law, but critically, it has recognised that the State’s failure to meet the basic needs of IP applicants has put them in a deeply vulnerable position where they cannot live in dignity and security.”
To read the judgment, click here.