Date: 21/04/2023
Country: Ireland
Jurisdiction: National, Irish High Court
Subject:
The Irish High Court last week held that the State failed to provide material reception conditions such as shelter, food and hygiene facilities. The boy was under 18 years old when he came to Ireland but he had no documentation and was refused accommodation.
Background
The applicant is an Afghan national who has stated his age as 17. In September 2022, the applicant’s father was killed by the Taliban. His eldest brother subsequently arranged for him to leave Afghanistan to seek asylum. The applicant left Afghanistan in November 2022 with the assistance of a “people smuggler”. Having travelled to Iran, Turkey, Bulgaria, Italy, France and England the applicant arrived in the State on 7 February 2023 and made an application for international protection the following day, 8 February 2023. He did not have documents to prove his age. The applicant was interviewed by social workers on behalf of the International Protection Office (“IPO”). They told the applicant that they believed he was an adult and not a minor. The applicant was informed that there was no accommodation available and was provided with a €28 voucher for Dunnes Stores to buy bedding. Other than €15 the applicant had no other financial means. The applicant was given the address of the Capuchin Day Centre, a private charity. Between 7 February and 28 February, the applicant had to sleep rough in places such as benches, parks, and train stations. The applicant did not have any food to eat and had to resort to begging. On occasion he was provided with food by other Afghani people whom he met on the streets. Whilst he was sleeping rough, the applicant felt constantly scared and in danger. In his grounding affidavit he states that on one occasion he was approached by a drunk man who demanded money from him, claiming he had a knife.
The applicant issued judicial review proceedings on 24 February 2023, seeking various reliefs which mainly focused on requiring the State to comply with its legal obligations under the Reception Conditions Directive (Directive 2013/33/EU). The Directive (along with domestic regulations) outlines the standards for the reception of international protection applicants. The State’s obligations under the Directive include providing an “adequate standard of living for applicants which guarantees their subsistence and protects their physical and mental health”. Material reception conditions are defined as including housing, food, daily expenses allowance and clothing.
On 28 February 2023, the State sourced accommodation for the applicant. It was accepted that the Minister did not comply with his legal obligations regarding material reception conditions until that accommodation was provided. The Minister outlined that the State faced very significant challenges to accommodate people such as the applicant, with a marked increase in international protection applications from previous years. It was also stated that the accommodation of nearly 70,000 Ukrainians had placed strain on the system. As such, the International Protection Accommodation Service was housing nearly 20,000 people compared with 8,500 in January 2022.
High Court
Two issues arose in the High Court hearing based on the fact the plaintiff had by that point secured accommodation. First, the State submitted that the proceedings had become moot. Second, the State argued that the declarations sought by the applicant were unnecessary in light of the Minister’s acceptance that he had not complied with his legal obligations.
The High Court held that the proceedings were not moot. The present case was a lead case, with many other applicants taking cases against the State but who had not received accommodation to which they were entitled. If the present case was defeated on the grounds of mootness, it would defeat the purpose of having a lead case, the Court said. The court held that although the issue of accommodation had been resolved in the case, the standard of material reception conditions remained live in other cases.
It was held that the Court had a discretion to refuse a declaration in a variety of circumstances, which included where the declaration would serve no useful purpose, whether the applicant had achieved the substantial result without any order, where a public body had shown it was doing all it could to comply with a statutory duty or where an error had been substantially cured.
The Irish Human Rights & Equality Commission joined this case as amicus curiae as it raised important questions about the duty of the State towards International Protection applicants. See here a link to the full written submissions made by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as Amicus Curiae.
The High Court held that the applicant was seeking to enforce his basic rights and there was nothing “academic or theoretical” about this. The issue was “real and substantial”, the Court said.
The Court also referred to ECJ case law which outlined that even if accommodation facilities were overloaded, alternative steps should be taken by the State. These steps could include financial allowances or referring applicants to bodies within the general public assistance system. Further, Article 1 of the EU Charter provided for the inviolability of human dignity, which included a person not finding themselves in extreme material poverty that does not allow basic needs to be met.
Having regard to the facts and admissions in the case, the Court held that the Minister was in breach of his obligations under the Regulations and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The High Court court granted declarations that the Minister’s failure to provide the applicant with material reception conditions was unlawful and in breach of his EU Charter Rights.
The provision of a €28 voucher to the applicant did not come “remotely close to what is required by law” and directing the applicant to private charities was “completely unacceptable”.
