The State’s failure to provide for the needs of homeless asylum seekers is a breach of their fundamental rights, the High Court in Dublin has ruled.
The court made the ruling after the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) took a case against the State over its failure to provide adequate accommodation to people seeking asylum in Ireland.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell delivered the judgment on Thursday afternoon, saying the court found that the approach adopted by the State breached the human rights of the “relevant unaccommodated IP (International Protection) applicants”.
Tents that were pitched by asylum seekers along Dublin’s Grand Canal before they were removed.
“By failing to meet their basic needs and leaving unaccommodated IP applicants without accommodation or the means to access accommodation, the State has breached the rights of those persons as provided for in Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,” the judge said.
The IHREC asked the court to make declarations that the state has failed its obligations and is breaching applicants’ rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
On December 4 last year, the Government stated that it could no longer offer accommodation to men seeking international protection.
However, the court did not grant the mandatory orders sought by the IHREC.
“While the court is satisfied that declarations to that effect are warranted, the court will not grant the mandatory orders sought by the Commission,” Justice O’Donnell added.
“Very briefly, the court is not satisfied that there is a basis for concluding that the State will ignore its obligations.
“The State has made clear, and the court accepts, that it is making strenuous efforts to redress the situation.
“Moreover, in response to the decisions of the High Court in 2023, the State in fact altered its approach by taking steps to improve the provision for unaccommodated IP applicants.
“While those steps were not sufficient to avoid a breach of the rights of those applicants, it demonstrated that the State did not intend to ignore the court orders.
“In the premises, it is not appropriate for the court to take the very serious additional step of making mandatory orders to support the declaratory relief sought by the Commission.”