The High Court has been told that it is "absolutely clear" that the State has failed to meet its obligations to meet the basic needs of unaccommodated International Protection (IP) applicants whether or not they were "street homeless".
The court has begun hearing the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission's (IHREC) case against the State over the failure to provide accommodation to all those seeking asylum here.
On 4 December, the State announced it could no longer provide accommodation to all newly arrived male applicants.
Senior Counsel for the Commission Eoin McCullough told the High Court that a failure to provide IP applicants with material reception conditions, including accommodation, was a breach of the applicants rights under Article 1 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.
"These obligations are not one of reasonable endeavours, these are mandatory obligations," Mr McCullough told the Court.
Mr McCullough said that a failure to meet these obligations "even for a short time" is a breach.
The court heard that as of 10 May, 1,715 recently arrived International Protection applicants were without state-provided shelter.
Mr McCullough said that in the State's affidavits, there was an "emphasis on street homelessness" and where this occurred with people living in tents around Mount Street and the Grand Canal.
However, Mr McCullough said that there was "no satisfactory evidence that there are not other street homeless within the 1,715" asylum seekers who remained without State accommodation on 10 May.
He went on to say that it also "did not matter" as it remained the responsibility of the State to provide them with accommodation.
He said that where some asylum seekers were able to make other arrangements, such as staying temporarily "with a fellow countryman" or sleeping in a mosque, "their rights have still been infringed."
Mr McCullough said that in contrast to cases taken on behalf of unaccommodated asylum seekers last year, which found the State in breach of its obligations, in this case, the State and the Minister for Integration "do not accept that they are failing to meet material reception conditions".
Mr McCullough said the State's position is largely based on a €75 increase in the weekly allowance paid to unaccommodated IP applicants, bringing it to €113.80 per week and the provision of food and basic hygiene facilities to applicants by four charities.
Mr McCullough said the Commission would demonstrate that these provisions were "manifestly insufficient."
Mr McCullough said that while the obligation to provide accommodation may be met in kind, by actually providing that accommodation or by providing financial assistance or vouchers, allowances paid in lieu of accommodation "must be sufficient to enable a dignified standard of living".
An analysis of the costs of hostels, hotels, AirBnB's and available room-to-share rental properties was read out to the court.
It heard that on a site called Hostel World, midweek prices ranged from €20 to €208 per night per person, and the more expensive weekend rates ranged from €40 to €244 per night per person.
The court also heard that research on a number of individual hostels showed that many required a credit card and some set maximum stay durations.
"It is fair to say that if you have €113.80 you might be able to stay one or two nights... it's clear there is not [a] practical way of staying for a substantial period in these institutions," Mr McCullough said.
He told the court that hotels were more expensive again, and the "figures involved were quite often twice the weekly allowance for a single night".
The analysis read out also showed 18 rooms available on AirBnB costing between €73 and €223 per night.
In relation to room-to-share rentals, the court heard that the analysis showed costs varied between €90 per week to €300 per week, with only one room available at the lowest rate.
"The money that is paid to unaccommodated applicants (€113.80 per week) is clearly not sufficient to enable them to obtain accommodation, even if they overcome the difficulties associated with getting access to such accommodation," Mr McCullough said.
The Commission is asking the court to compel the State to provide for the basic needs, including accommodation, of unaccommodated applicants.
Mr McCullough said that the State is seeking to rely on Article 18 (9) of the Reception Conditions Directive, which provides for alternative arrangements in exceptional circumstances.
However, Mr McCullough said that this does not exempt the State from its obligations and requires that any alternatives must be for as short a period as possible and must cover basic needs.
"Provision of a tent does not do that," Mr McCullough said.
This is the first time the Commission has used its powers, under section 41 of the 2014 IHREC Act, to take a legal action in its own name, concerning the human rights of a person or class of people.
Mr McCullough said that the State has queried its standing to take the case, contending that it had to be possible to identify or name every person in the claim.
"That is not what section 41(1) says," Mr McCullough said.
While the number of unaccommodated asylum seekers had grown substantially from a figure of 259 when the Commission initiated these proceedings, Mr McCullough told the court that "actually in this case, the State knows who every person is" as they record the details of all international protection applicants left without an offer of accommodation and publish the figures twice a week.
The State is contesting the case and denies that it is failing to meet its obligations.
The case is expected to last three days.
