The Supreme Court has dismissed a constitutional challenge to legislation restricting social welfare payments for beneficiaries of temporary protection residing in designated State accommodation centres, finding that the measures did not breach the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law.
Delivering judgment, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley held that the State was entitled to revise its accommodation and welfare policies in response to increasing pressure on reception facilities, provided appropriate assistance remained available and its obligations under the EU Temporary Protection Directive continued to be met.
The appellants, a married Ukrainian couple granted temporary protection in Ireland in April 2022, had been receiving disability allowance and carer’s allowance due to their significant medical needs. However, following amendments introduced by the Social Welfare and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024, they became ineligible for those payments when their State-funded full-board accommodation was designated as an accommodation centre in September 2024. Instead, they received an ex gratia payment of €38.30 per week.
The couple challenged the legislation under Article 40.1 of the Constitution, arguing that they were being treated unequally compared with other social welfare recipients. The High Court rejected their claim, finding that the legislative changes pursued legitimate objectives of encouraging independence and reducing reliance on emergency accommodation. The appellants subsequently brought a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court.
Ms Justice O’Malley emphasised that the appellants accepted that their rights under the EU Temporary Protection Directive had not been breached. Their case was therefore a claim based solely on equality, rather than an asserted substantive entitlement to the allowances. Applying Donnelly v Minister for Social Protection [2023] 2 I.R. 415, the Court held that such a challenge could succeed only where the legislative distinction was based on a constitutionally illegitimate consideration.
The Court rejected the appellants’ comparisons with recognised refugees, other beneficiaries of temporary protection living independently, and residents of care institutions. It found that the State could legitimately distinguish between different categories of beneficiaries and alter temporary reception arrangements in light of changing circumstances.
The Court also considered that the appellants’ argument failed to account for the substantial financial value of their State-funded accommodation, food and heating. Ms Justice O’Malley described comparisons with couples receiving similar allowances while paying rent and living expenses as “wholly unrealistic”.
The Court concluded that providing accommodation and food in kind, rather than equivalent support through cash payments, did not itself engage Article 40.1 where individuals could choose between the arrangements and no disproportionately unfavourable treatment had been established.
While recognising the legitimacy of policies aimed at preserving full-board accommodation for new arrivals, Ms Justice O’Malley stressed that beneficiaries must receive appropriate assistance to secure independent accommodation and that compliance with the Temporary Protection Directive remained essential. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.