The Court of Appeal has allowed the State’s appeal against a High Court declaration that Ireland breached the human rights of over 2,800 newly arrived international protection applicants by failing to provide them with accommodation between December 2023 and May 2024. While acknowledging the State’s failure to meet its reception obligations under EU law, the Court concluded that the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (‘IHREC’) had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a breach of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
The proceedings arose after the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth announced in January 2023 that the State was no longer in a position to offer accommodation to new applicants presenting at the International Protection Office due to capacity pressures, including an increase in arrivals following the invasion of Ukraine. IHREC, invoking its powers under section 41 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014, brought judicial review proceedings seeking declaratory relief on the basis that the State had breached its obligations under the Charter, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Constitution.
The High Court accepted that 2,807 applicants had not been offered accommodation during the relevant five-month period and that the services provided, including increased financial assistance and access to limited hygiene and food provisions, were inadequate. The Court considered that the failure to meet these basic needs had left many applicants in a vulnerable position, with some sleeping outdoors, thereby undermining their human dignity in breach of Article 1 of the Charter.
However, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court had been mistaken in finding that a breach of Article 1 of the Charter had been established. The relevant legal test (which is set out in Haqbin v. Belgium) requires not only that applicants be placed in a situation of extreme material poverty, but that such conditions demonstrably undermine their physical or mental health or subject them to treatment incompatible with human dignity.
The Court of Appeal was not satisfied that IHREC had proven the broader impact required to establish a breach of Article 1. In particular, the Commission’s evidence, based on a small sample representing 0.4% of the defined group, was insufficient to show that the physical or mental health of the broader cohort of 2,807 individuals had been adversely affected to the extent required. The Court further noted that IHREC had not adequately addressed the role of Additional Needs Payments made available by the State and their impact on applicants’ material conditions.
Importantly, the Court also clarified the scope of IHREC’s standing under section 41 of the 2014 Act, holding that it does not require the identification or consent of individual members of the class concerned. The Commission was entitled to pursue declaratory relief on behalf of a defined group, even though that group was not party to the proceedings.
Nonetheless, the Court found that the evidence before it did not meet the legal threshold for establishing a breach of fundamental rights. It concluded that while the failure to meet accommodation needs was established, this alone did not satisfy the requirements for a declaration of breach under Article 1 of the Charter. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the application for judicial review was dismissed.
In response to the decision, IHREC Chief Commissioner Liam Herrick stated:
“While we are disappointed with the Court’s ultimate finding, we welcome the ruling on our section 41 power to bring this case and other similar cases. We will closely examine this judgment and the Commission as a whole will consider whether or not to appeal. In the meantime, the substantive issues remain. Thousands of International Protection applicants are experiencing extreme material poverty. As of July 2025, there are 1,333 International Protection applicants who are without accommodation. Under EU law the State has an obligation to provide for their basic needs”.
Click here to read the full Court of Appeal judgment.
Click here to read IHREC’s full statement.