The EU’s highest court, the European Court of Justice, has rejected the Irish state’s claim that the exceptional circumstances created by an influx of asylum applicants impacted its obligation to cover asylum seekers’ basic needs including housing.
The ruling in the case, taken by two asylum seekers with the support of the Irish Refuge Council means that Ireland could be liable to pay damages to migrants claiming international protection if the State fails to provide them with accommodation.
In its verdict, which was expected to go against the Irish state after an opinion was issued by the Advocate General Laila Medina to the ECJ in April, the ECJ ejected the Irish State’s argument that the numbers arriving claiming asylum amounted to “force majeure” under EU law.
EU law has defined Force Majeure as “referring to abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances which were outside the control of the party by whom it is pleaded and the consequences of which could not have been avoided in spite of the exercise of all due care”.
However, the ECJ ruled today that a member state could not make that plea in relation to an unforeseeable influx of applicants for international protection in order to evade its obligations to cover basic needs.
Last month, Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan said that the expected ruling from the ECJ meant that asylum seekers could sue the state for damages if acomodation was not provided, while homeless people in Ireland would have no such right.
“If that opinion is upheld by the CJEU, which is the most likely outcome, it will mean that people in Ireland who are entitled to be on social housing lists or homeless lists and who have not been provided with accommodation will be in a situation where they cannot receive damages for the state’s failure to provide accommodation, whilst applicants for asylum will immediately on arrival in Ireland be able to claim and receive Francovich damages from the State if it cannot provide them with accommodation,” he said.
“That will be a very consequential decision that will be very hard to justify, not just to citizens of Ireland but of all member states. We should try to ensure that in trying to vindicate certain rights we do not marginalise or demote other equally legitimate rights.”
“On 10 April this year in proceedings brought against Ireland by two international protection applicants, the Advocate General gave an opinion that Ireland as an EU Member State cannot avoid responsibility for providing adequate reception conditions even in cases where there is a large influx of people seeking international protection, as was the case last year,” he said.
“The Government argued the breaches were due to exceptional circumstances, namely an influx of asylum seekers, which amounted to “force majeure” under EU law. The Advocate General ruled that under the directive a member state could not avoid a claim for damages because of a defence of force majeure.”
TWO APPLICANTS AND THE IRISH REFUGEE COUNCIL
Today’s ruling relates to High Court actions by two applicants against the state, alleging breaches of their rights under the EU Reception Conditions Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Both applicants applied for international protection in 2023, but were denied housing and were also deemed ineligible for daily allowances. They were given a €25 voucher. Both ended up homeless in Dublin.
The IRC is a body in receipt of taxpayer funding. Today, the Managing Solicitor of the its Independent Law Centre, Katie Mannion, welcomed the ECJ ruling, saying: “The court says that EU law is clear that Ireland cannot use the excuse of a large influx of people to the country to justify its failures to follow the law and provide basic accommodation.
“The court found that the State cannot evade its obligations to cover people’s basic needs, and that an interpretation other than this would compromise the effective judicial protection of applicants”.