Ireland’s Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday that the government did not violate the rights of newly arrived single male asylum seekers who were left without accommodation, overturning an earlier High Court decision that found a breach of Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The case was brought by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), a national independent body that monitors for potential human rights violations. The commission brought the case under Section 41 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act. While the government challenged IHREC’s ability to bring the case under the statute, the commission successfully argued that it was authorized to initiate the litigation.
In the case, the IHREC argued that the government’s failure to provide shelter for around 2,800 single men seeking asylum, particularly between December 2023 and May 2024, placed them in conditions so severe that their human dignity was undermined.
In particular, the issue was whether these men had been placed in a “state of degradation incompatible with human dignity,” as protected by Article 1 of the EU Charter. The Court of Appeal agreed that the men were left in “extreme material poverty,” but found that evidence—primarily testimony from about a dozen individuals—did not sufficiently extend to establish harm inflicted on the entire group of asylum seekers. Justice Anthony Collins, delivering the judgment, described the gap as an “evidential deficit.”
The policy under challenge stemmed from emergency measures introduced after the Irish government said it could no longer guarantee accommodation for all applicants due to budget pressures and an increased number of arrivals. Families, children, and vulnerable individuals were prioritized for housing. Others, including single men, were given a weekly stipend of €113.80 and directed to charity services and limited supplies such as tents.
The High Court had previously found these measures insufficient, ruling that the lack of shelter and basic hygiene facilities placed men in a “deeply vulnerable and frightening position” that violated the Charter. The appellate court, however, drew a distinction between hardship and a breach of legal rights, stating that the evidence did not establish a widespread violation.
While the Court of Appeal struck down arguments that the legal threshold for a Charter breach had been met, it affirmed the IHREC’s standing to bring group claims. Still, the commission’s status as a state-funded body may raise questions about its perceived independence in future cases, especially when it challenges government policies adopted during periods of financial strain.
The IHREC welcomed the court’s recognition that the men had endured extreme hardship and renewed its call for stronger protections.
Previously, the High Court of Northern Ireland found that the United Kingdom’s Rwanda deportation policy breached international human rights law. Ireland had supported the view that Rwanda should not be considered a safe third country, and the ruling underscored the judiciary’s role in curbing policies that expose asylum seekers to further harm.
