The European Court of Justice has rejected the Government's claim that an influx of international protection applicants impacted its obligation to cover asylum seekers’ basic needs.
The judgment relates to High Court actions by two applicants against the Irish authorities, alleging breaches of their rights under the Reception Conditions Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The men in question applied for international protection in 2023, but were denied housing and received a €25 voucher.
They were also deemed ineligible for daily allowances. Consequently, both ended up homeless in Dublin.
The High Court sought a ruling from the European Court of Justice, after the Government argued the breaches were due to exceptional circumstances, namely an influx of asylum seekers, which amounted to "force majeure" under EU law.
Force majeure refers to an abnormal or unforeseen event beyond the control of a state, making it materially impossible to fulfil an obligation.
The European Court of Justice has found that a member state may not plead an unforeseeable influx of applicants for international protection, in order to evade its obligations to cover basic needs.
The court stressed that EU law requires countries to guarantee an adequate standard of living for asylum applicants, even in times of crisis, through means such as housing, financial aid, or vouchers.
Temporary derogations may be allowed under strict conditions, such as a mass and unexpected influx, but even then, basic needs must still be met.
Ireland’s failure to offer any meaningful alternative - such as temporary housing or emergency financial assistance - amounted to a manifest and serious breach of EU law, the court said.
The ruling is not surprising following an opinion issued by the Advocate General Laila Medina to the ECJ in April, which said that Ireland - as an EU member state - could not avoid responsibility for providing adequate reception conditions even in cases where there is a large influx of people seeking international protection.
The matter will return to the High Court.
The Irish Refugee Council described the judgment as "an important decision for all vulnerable groups".
Its client 'SA', who applied for International Protection, experienced 71 days street homelessness, hunger and fear, because there was no accommodation made available to him.
He was prohibited from working and could not access any emergency accommodation or payments during that time.
Having sought a bed in IPAS accommodation numerous times the Irish Refugee Council said he had "no further option" but to seek shelter through the courts.
Managing Solicitor of the IRC's Independent Law Centre Katie Mannion said the ECJ had "clearly and strongly stated" that a member state "which fails to provide an applicant who does not have sufficient means with those material conditions, even temporarily, is manifestly and gravely exceeding its discretion with regard to the application of the directive".
It found that such a failure was therefore capable of constituting a sufficiently serious infringement of EU law, triggering the liability of the member state concerned.
"The court says that EU law is clear that Ireland cannot use the excuse of a large influx of people to the country to justify its failures to follow the law and provide basic accommodation.
"The court found that the State cannot evade its obligations to cover people's basic needs, and that an interpretation other than this would compromise the effective judicial protection of applicants," Ms Mannion said.
