The High Court has refused a Ukrainian man’s challenge over his entitlement to State-provided accommodation after finding that a later decision to remove him from a reception centre had overtaken the dispute.
Alexander Dashevsky entered Ireland in July 2022 and sought international protection. In October 2023 he was granted subsidiary protection but refused refugee status. He appealed the refugee-status refusal and later brought separate judicial review proceedings challenging that outcome.
Mr Dashevsky argued in the present case that, while his refugee claim remained under challenge, he should continue to be treated as an applicant for international protection under the 2018 Reception Conditions Regulations and therefore remain entitled to accommodation. Alternatively, he argued that EU reception rules had not been properly transposed into Irish law.
The dispute initially arose after International Protection Accommodation Services told him that, having received protection status, he should move into independent accommodation. He was permitted to remain in his existing accommodation after judicial review proceedings began in July 2024.
Events then changed the position. IPAS issued written warnings concerning alleged breaches of centre rules in June and July 2024. In March 2025, following a further incident involving a refusal to move rooms, his accommodation was withdrawn. Mr Dashevsky disputed the allegations and sought an internal review, but that review upheld the decision in June 2025.
Mr Justice Barr held that this later expulsion decision had become the operative reason why Mr Dashevsky was no longer accommodated by the State. He had not separately challenged that decision by judicial review.
The court therefore did not decide the underlying legal question of whether a person granted subsidiary protection can continue to claim reception accommodation while pursuing a challenge concerning refugee status.
Because resolving that question would no longer affect Mr Dashevsky’s accommodation position, the proceedings were moot. The court also found that none of the recognised exceptions justified deciding the issue anyway.