The case concerned the State's inability to provide accommodation and related services to international protection applicants between December 2023 and May 2024. Since late 2023, the number of persons applying for international protection surpassed the existing accommodation capacity, and the Irish State was unable to meet the needs of all applicants, resulting in significant number of unaccommodated international protection applicants.

To handle the undercapacity while working to enhance capacity, the State implemented a policy of prioritising access to accommodation for vulnerable persons, such as families with children. As a result of such strategy, many single male, applicants for  international protection were not given access to accommodation by the State. Instead, the State attempted to meet the needs of those applicants by increasing daily cost allowance payments and establishing provisions for additional ancillary services such as vouchers, information services, and increased assistance for day services.

The proceedings were filed before the High Court by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), the National Human Rights Institution, and the National Equality Body, which is responsible for overseeing compliance with human rights obligations in Ireland. For the first time, the IHREC exercised its power under Section 41 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Act to bring the case before the High Court, which states that “the Commission may institute proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of obtaining relief of a declaratory or other nature in respect of any matter concerning the human rights of any person or class of persons”.

The IHREC contended that the State had a legal obligation to provide adequate material reception conditions, including accommodation, to international protection applicants. The IHREC requested relief in the form of declaratory and mandatory orders to address a situation impacting the human rights of a class of persons, namely unaccommodated international protection applicants who had arrived in the State since December 2023.

The scope and the interpretation of Section 41 of the 2014 Act were debated by the High Court, with the State arguing that the Commission's use of Section 41 with references to EU Directives and Regulations was improper because the reference to “human rights” in Section 41 refers only to specific rights outline in Part 3 of the Act, not secondary legislation. The State argued that since other cases were decided by the High Court in 2023, the factual situation had changed, and the State had changed its approach to dealing with unaccommodated international protection applications, and it is now meeting their needs. The State also claimed that because it had committed to addressing the accommodation issue and the High Court's decision in S.Y. v The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration, and Youth, the proceedings are unnecessary, and that the High Court should exercise its discretion in denying relief.

The High Court ruled that the State was incorrect in its approach to interpreting Section 41 of the 2014 Act, particularly in its narrow interpretation of the definition of "human rights," and that the IHREC was entitled to bring an action before the court concerning the rights of third parties. The court further found that there was no need to identify or have consent from each individual member of the class of persons concerned in the action. The court was also satisfied that, while Section 41 allows the Commission to bring an action concerning the rights of third parties, thereby altering the usual rules of standing, the Commission, like any other litigant, must satisfy to the court that there is a live dispute and prove their case in an ordinary manner.

After determining that the procedures were properly formulated, the High Court ruled that the Irish State's approach breached the human rights of the unaccommodated international protection applicants. The court determined that applicants for international protection have a well-established fundamental right to have their human dignity respected and protected, including the right to an adequate standard of living that ensures their subsistence and protects their physical and mental health in situations where they do not have sufficient means to care for themselves. The High Court found that the State violated the right to human dignity of those individuals as guaranteed by Article 1 of the EU Charter by failing to meet their needs and leaving unaccommodated international protection applicants without accommodation or the means to access accommodation.

The High Court referred to relevant case law of the CJEU, in Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers (Belgium, Fedasil) v S. Saciri and Others, where the court drew a direct connection between the RCD and the requirements of Article 1 of the EU Charter, under which human dignity must be respected and protected, and preclude the asylum seeker from being deprived - even for a temporary period of time after making the asylum application.

The High Court granted a declaratory relief in the following terms: “A declaration that the respondents' failure to provide for the basic needs of newly arrived international protection applicants between 4 December 2023 and 10 May 2024, whether by way of the provision of accommodation, shelter, food and basic hygiene facilities or otherwise, is in breach of that class of persons rights pursuant to Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”

The High Court was satisfied that the declarations were necessary, but it did not grant the mandatory orders sought by the Commission. This was because the High Court did not believe there were sufficient grounds to conclude that the State would ignore its obligations. The court found that the State had made it apparent, and the High Court agreed that it is making significant efforts to address the situation, noting that in response to the High Court's rulings in 2023, the State changed its position, attempting to improve the situation of unaccommodated international protection applicants. The court accepted that these efforts were insufficient to prevent a violation of the applicant's rights, but it proved the State did not intend to disregard the court orders. As a result, the court determined that it is not appropriate to take more significant actions, such as issuing mandatory orders, to support the declaratory relief sought by the Commission.