Judge overturns ruling that State breached human rights for not accommodating asylum seekers

The Journal

4 days ago

AN APPEALS COURT judge has overturned a decision which ruled that the State was in breach of its human rights obligations over failing to provide basic needs, such as housing, to international protection applicants.
The state ran out of public accommodation for asylum seekers almost two years ago and increased payments and provided temporary shelter, such as tents, to those who arrived by themselves and were without housing.
In March, the State
launched an appeal
of a High Court decision last year that ruled the state was in breach of its international human rights obligations over the
failure to provide necessities to people seeking asylum in Ireland
.
The ruling opened up the possibility for the state to be sued in the future.
Today, a Mr Justice Anthony Collins overturned the ruling and stated that the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, which took the original case against the state, failed to uphold its claims that a lack of services impacted people's health status.
Advertisement
The Commission had claimed that the failure to place people seeking international protection into publicly-provided housing resulted in extreme material poverty and impacted their physical and mental health.
The court accepted that people seeking international protection in Ireland could be classified as being in extreme material poverty, on account of testimony from 13 asylum seekers who claimed the lack of services had an impact on the status of their health.
However, the judge disagreed that the group's health issues, as a result of a lack of services, were representative of all applicants in similar positions.
'That evidence is necessarily and understandably limited to those individuals' experiences,' the judgment said.
It added that the Commission had not 'demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court how that evidence can be applied across the board' or that they were 'put in a state of degradation incompatible with human dignity'.
Section 41
In its appeal, the state had also argued that the Commission was not entitled to bring a Section 41 case, which allows it to challenge government decisions that it reasonably believes risks the fulfilment of international obligations.
The state submitted argued that there was no basis for the claim, as the then-Minister for Integration Roderic O'Gorman had made efforts to increase payments to people seeking international protection who were not provided with public accommodation.
Related Reads
Fences will continue to be erected along canal if more tents appear, says Waterways Ireland boss
'You can't erect a tent wherever you want' - Taoiseach responds to 'cruelty' accusations
Ministers to discuss a €75 payment to asylum applicants after accommodation runs out
Mr Justice Collins rejected this today, however. He said that the Commission had a right, under Section 41 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014, to bring the case forward.
'The Commission's institution of these proceedings comes within the intendment of that provision, by reason of which they were properly before the High Court,' he wrote.
Speaking today, chief commissioner Liam Herrick said while the human rights watchdog was 'disappointed with the Court's ultimate finding', it welcomes the ruling which allows it to continue to legally challenge decisions.
'We will closely examine this judgment,' he said. 'And the Commission as a whole will consider whether or not to appeal.'
He added: 'In the meantime, the substantive issues remain. Thousands of International Protection applicants are experiencing extreme material poverty.
'As of July 2025, there are 1,333 International Protection applicants who are without accommodation. Under EU law the State has an obligation to provide for their basic need.'
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal