The case concerned a minor applicant from Afghanistan who claimed that he was not provided access to reception material conditions as provided by the recast Reception Conditions Directive (RCD). The applicant complained in particular that he was not provided with accommodation/shelter, that he was not provided with food and basic minimum items for hygiene.  

The applicant claimed asylum in Ireland and stated that his father was killed by the Taliban in 2022. During the application, it was uncertain whether the applicant was a minor and he did not have documents to prove his age. He had been interviewed by the International Protection Office social workers and since he was believed to be an adult, he was informed that no accommodation was available. The applicant was provided with a voucher worth 28 euro for Dunnes Stores to buy bedding and was provided with the address of a private charity. Between 7 and 28 February 2022 the applicant slept on streets and had food occasionally.

The applicant appeared to be a minor although he was initially deemed an adult and he further obtained documentation from Afghanistan to prove he is a minor. An age assessment review was pending.

The applicant complained before the courts that he was not provided accommodation and material reception conditions in accordance with te provisions of the RCD and the EU Charter.

The High Court allowed the judicial review and stated that “material reception conditions” included the provision of food and basic hygiene products. In view of the court, the provision of a voucher and direction towards a private charity were not sufficient as the requirements required by law. The court referred to the judgments of the CJEU in  Zubair Haqbin (Afghanistan) v Belgium, Federal agency for the reception of asylum seekers (Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers), C-233/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:956, 12 November 2019 and  Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers (Belgium, Fedasil) v S. Saciri and Others, C-79/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:103, 27 February 2014 to reiterate the requirements under the RCD and Article 1 of the EU Charter.

The High Court mentioned that even in situations of overloaded accommodation facilities, alternative measures have to be adopted. Moreover, even if the Minister was making considerable efforts to secure accommodation, such fact did not absolve it of the obligations to provide material reception conditions and a reach of its obligations under the Reception Conditions Directive and Article 1 of the CFR was found.