The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission sought to appeal the Court of Appeal judgment [2025] IECA 156 of 30 July 2025. Judgment [2025] IECA 156 of 30 July 2025 resulted from the State’s appeal of High Court judgment [2024] IEHC 493, 01 August 2024. In [2025] IECA 156, the Court of Appeal evaluated the evidence of the Commission and concluded that although it had proven that applicants of international protection applicants, who did not receive accommodation, were living in circumstances of extreme material poverty resulting from the State’s failure to provide accommodation, the evidence fell short of establishing that their conditions caused damage to their physical or mental health or that the degrading conditions were incompatible with human dignity.

The Commission argued that the appeal raised issues of general ‘very significant public importance’ regarding the interpretation of Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter). It argued that the appeal raised fundamental questions of Irish and EU law regarding the standard of protection for human rights in Ireland, and clarification had to be allowed due to the different conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The Commission also argued that a further appeal should be permitted in the interests of justice. It argued that the Court of Appeal engaged on its own examination of the evidence rather than remitting the case to the High Court or reopening the hearing to allow parties to make submissions. The Commission submitted to the Supreme Court that the proceedings could be resolved on the basis of the existing jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). 

The State agreed with the submissions of the Commission, adding that the outcome of the appeal has the potential to affect a significant number of future cases and to the differing conclusions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Sitting in a three judges panel, the Supreme Court issued a determination concluding that the appeal satisfied the constitutional criteria. It noted that several matters of general public importance have been identified by the parties, namely: the meaning and application of Section 41 of the 2014 Act, and the status, scope and application of Article 1 of the EU Charter. The panel also agreed that the appeal had to be allowed in the interests of justice, stressing the importance of the issue, the wider impact of the resolution of those issues, and the fact that the High Court and the Court of Appeal reached conflicting conclusions on those issues leading to very different outcomes in those courts.

The case was considered as having priority for hearing and resolution.