The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland and the Attorney General, and dismissed the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission’s judicial review application over accommodation for newly arrived applicants for international protection.
In a judgment delivered on 30 July 2025, Mr Justice Anthony Collins, with whom Ms Justice Pilkington and Ms Justice Hyland agreed, held that the Commission had proved that provision for accommodation was insufficient for a substantial number of applicants who presented to the International Protection Office between 4 December 2023 and 10 May 2024 and were not offered accommodation. The court was prepared to infer that this left the defined group in extreme material poverty.
But the court said the Commission had not proved that this situation undermined the group’s physical or mental health, or placed its members in a state of degradation incompatible with human dignity. Those consequences are required, alongside extreme material poverty, to establish a breach of Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights under the test applied by the court. The evidence of 13 applicants was not shown to be representative of the group of 2,807, and the court said it could not extrapolate their individual experiences to the whole group.
The Commission had brought proceedings under section 41 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014. The State argued that people in the class had to be identified individually and give consent. The Court of Appeal rejected those objections, holding that the Commission could bring proceedings concerning a defined class without naming its members or obtaining their consent. It also held that Article 1 of the Charter was, in principle, justiciable before Irish courts.
The court distinguished proof of inadequate reception provision from proof of a Charter breach. It found that weekly payments and other provision did not meet the accommodation needs of a substantial number of the defined group. However, it said the evidence about food, clothing and hygiene was inconclusive, including because the Commission had not sufficiently addressed the effect of Additional Needs Payments available to applicants.
The High Court had made a declaration in October 2024 that the State’s failure to provide for the group’s basic needs breached Article 1. The Court of Appeal allowed the State’s appeal and dismissed the judicial review application. It did not disturb the High Court costs order and made no order on appeal costs, while allowing either side to seek a different costs order by written submissions.