About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IECA 156
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Anthony Collins

Delivering judgment for the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Anthony Collins considered that while the State had failed to provide for the accommodation needs of new applicants, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission had failed to demonstrate that this had undermined the physical or mental health of the applicants or had placed them in a situation of degradation incompatible with their human dignity contrary to Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Eoin McCullough SC, Patricia Brazil SC and David Fennelly SC appeared for the applicant/respondent, instructed by solicitor Clare McQuillan. David Conlan Smyth SC, Catherine Donnelly SC, John P. Gallagher and Aoife McMahon appeared for the respondents/appellants, instructed by the Chief State Solicitor.

Background

In January 2023, and in light of increasing numbers of international protection applicants, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth announced that the State was no longer in a position to offer accommodation to new applicants who presented themselves to the International Protection Office (IPO).

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission raised concerns that Ireland was in breach of its legal obligations towards those persons and, being dissatisfied with the minister’s response, issued judicial review proceedings in exercise of its powers under s.41 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014.

The Commission sought inter alia declaratory relief that the failure to provide for the needs of newly arrived applicants breached provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Constitution.

The High Court

Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell was satisfied that inter alia the combined effect of the Commission’s evidence was to establish a strong prima facie case, and that there had been little, if any, dispute about the core factual contentions.

The judge was further satisfied that the Commission had proved the existence of a group of 2,807 applicants who, between 4 December 2023 and 10 May 2024, had not been offered accommodation and who relied upon the State to provide for their basic needs.

Having regard to the evidence, the court considered that the increased financial assistance provided by the State to applicants was inadequate to allow them to access basic housing from the private sector and that most applicants who had not been offered accommodation remained homeless, with many being forced to sleep outdoors despite coming to the attention of the International Protection Accommodation Services (IPAS) through its vulnerability triage process.

Mr Justice O’Donnell also held that basic needs go beyond housing to include food, clothing, and personal hygiene and that the services provided to applicants without accommodation were inadequate to meet those needs and that applicants were left in a vulnerable position which undermined their human dignity.

Accordingly, the High Court made a declaration to the effect that the State’s failure to provide for the needs of newly arrived international protection applicants between 4 December 2023 and 10 May 2024 was in breach of that class of persons’ rights pursuant to Article 1 CFREU.

Grounds of appeal

The State appealed the High Court’s interpretation and/or application of s. 41 of the 2014 Act, the justiciability of Article 1 CFREU, the application of the test for a breach of Article 1 CFREU, its assessment of the evidence with respect to street homelessness and other asserted deficiencies in the provision of material reception conditions for the defined class of persons, and contended that the High Court failed to have regard to relevant considerations in its judgment.

The Court of Appeal

Having analysed the provisions of the 2014 Act, Mr Justice Collins disagreed with the State’s submission that under s.41(1) thereof, individual members of the ‘class of persons’ to which s.41 refers must be identified individually and must give their consent thereto.

The court concurred with the High Court’s assessment that s.41 provides for a “novel and unusual form of action” which allows the Commission to promote and to seek compliance with human rights obligations, noting inter alia that the s. 41(1) procedure is not a form of class action but one in which the ‘class of persons’ is not a party to, but rather is the subject of, the proceedings and so there is no justification to require the Commission to obtain consent to, or to allow themselves to be identified in the context of, their institution.

The court also disagreed with the proposition that Article 1 CFREU does not contain an identifiable right by reference to which a court could declare that a breach had occurred. 

In this regard, the court recognised inter alia that Article 1 imposes clear duties on EU member states to respect, to protect and not to violate human dignity and considered Case C-233/18 Zubair Haqbin v. Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers as laying down an identifiable and stringent test for the identification of a breach of Article 1: whether the subject class were in a situation of extreme material poverty which prevented them from meeting their basic needs, and whether that situation undermined their physical and/or mental health or placed them in a position incompatible with human dignity. 

In all the circumstances, the Court of Appeal considered that Article 1 CFREU was in principle justiciable before the Irish courts and that the Commission was entitled to maintain proceedings to seek a declaration that the State breached Article 1 thereof and that the High Court had jurisdiction to make the declaration it did.

Mr Justice Collins was also satisfied that the High Court had conflated a failure to provide an individual with material reception conditions under the Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 (S.I. No. 230 of 2018) with a breach of Article 1 CFREU and in following S.Y. (A minor) v. Minister for Children [2023] IEHC 187 had consequently had failed to apply the second part of the Haqbin test, instead drawing “an inference at a relatively high level” and examining the evidence “through a lens different than through which the law requires”.

Finding that where a remittal would delay the adjudication of the proceedings, the Court of Appeal decided to evaluate the evidence before it and rule upon the application for judicial review itself.

Having assessed the Commission’s evidence, the Court of Appeal was unconvinced that a breach of Article 1 CFREU had occurred.

While the court was satisfied that the Commission had successfully proved that the respondents failed to meet the basic accommodation needs of applicants, placing them in a situation of extreme material poverty, Mr Justice Collins considered inter alia that the evidence as to whether the basic needs of applicants were met was inconclusive, that it was not possible to deduce the state of a person’s mind and body by direct extrapolation from the material conditions in which they live, and that it was not open to the court to infer from the evidence provided by a small sample of 0.4 per cent of the class of persons defined by the Commission that the mental health of the entire class of 2,807 individuals had been undermined.

The court further acknowledged that while the High Court’s judgment had failed to refer to the Additional Needs Payments (ANPs) made available to applicants by the State, it was for the Commission to show the impact or lack thereof of the availability of ANPs for the material circumstances of the subject class and that it had failed to do so.

As to whether the evidence permitted the court to find that the circumstances of extreme material poverty placed the subject class in a state of degradation incompatible with human dignity as would breach Article 1 CFREU, the Court of Appeal was unable to identify such a breach in light of the insufficient evidence tendered and the small sample of persons chosen by the Commission.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission v The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth & Ors [2025] IECA 156