Article 1 - Human dignity
Article 3 - Right to integrity of the person
Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Article 5 - Slavery / Forced Labour
Article 7 - Respect for private and family life
Key facts of the case:
An Afghan national, sought International Protection in Ireland, but he was not provided with accommodation, nor other basic needs (including food or hygiene facilities) on his arrival in Ireland. He was told that accommodation would be provided once space became available. He was given a supermarket voucher to the value of €28. As a result, he lived on the streets for three weeks without State support. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission joined the case as amicus curiae as it raised important questions about the duty of the State towards International Protection applicants under the EU (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018, which includes the provision of material reception conditions, including accommodation, food and basic hygiene facilities. Further, Article 1 of the EU Charter provided for the inviolability of human dignity, which included a person not finding themselves in extreme material poverty that does not allow basic needs to be met.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission argued that failure to provide for the basic needs for those seeking International Protection amounts to a breach of EU law, including the right to dignity under Article 1 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, and that current pressures on accommodation resources in Ireland do not relieve the State of those obligations.
Outcome of the case:
The Court held that the Minister was in breach of his obligations under the Regulations and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The Court also referred to ECJ case law which outlined that even if accommodation facilities were overloaded, alternative steps should be taken by the State. These steps could include financial allowances or referring applicants to bodies within the general public assistance system. The High Court court granted declarations that the Minister’s failure to provide the applicant with material reception conditions was unlawful and in breach of his EU Charter Rights. This was the first time that the State has been found by the national courts to be in breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
16. “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” (The Charter of Rights) provides: “Article 1 Human dignity Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. Article 3 Right to the integrity of the person 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. Article 4 Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 7 Respect for private and family life Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.”
41. The applicant also seeks a declaration under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, in particular Article 1 which refers to human dignity and Article 3 which refers to “Right to the Integrity of the Person”. 42. The Minister submitted that the Regulations do not refer to Article 35 of the Directive which refers to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and that the Directive does not meet with the conditions for direct effect. Contrary to this the Amicus Curiae submits that the Regulations are to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Directive which necessarily means the court should have regard to the provisions of Article 35. It seems to me that such a submission must be correct.
43. There are two decisions of the ECJ which have particular relevance. Firstly, case C233/80 Haqbin. This case concerned withdrawal by a Member State of reception conditions relating to housing, food and clothing where the recipients had been involved in violence. The court stated: - “40. With regard specifically to the requirement to ensure a dignified standard of living, it is apparent from Recital 35 of Directive 2013/33 that the Directive seeks to ensure full respect for human dignity and to promote the application, inter alia, of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and has to be implemented accordingly. In that regard, respect for human dignity within the meaning of that Article requires the person concerned not finding himself or herself in a situation of extreme material poverty that does not allow that person to meet his or her most basis needs such as a place to live, food, clothing and personal hygiene, and that undermines his or her physical or mental health or puts that person in a state of degradation incompatible with human dignity” (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 March 2019, Jawo, C-163/17, EU:C:2019;218, para. 92 and the caselaw cited).19
44. Case C-79/30 Saciri refers to the earlier Reception Conditions Directive 2003/9/EC. Three questions were referred by the Member State to the ECJ. On the first and second questions the court stated: - “35. In addition, the general scheme and purpose of Directive 2003/9 and the observance of fundamental rights, in particular the requirements of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, under which human dignity must be respected and protected, preclude the asylum seeker from being deprived – even for a temporary period of time after making of the application for asylum and before being actually transferred to the responsible Member State – the protection of the minimum standards laid down by that Directive” (see Cimade & GSTI, para. 56).
47. In Saciri the ECJ envisaged the situation that has arisen in the State being lack of accommodation. Even though the Minister is making efforts to secure accommodation this does not absolve him of his obligations under the Regulations. Clearly, giving the applicant a €28 voucher for Dunnes Stores and the addresses of private charities does not come close to what is required. 48. Further, in both cases referred to above specific reference was made by the ECJ to the provisions of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which states “human dignity is inviable it must be respected and protected.”
Conclusion 51. By reason of the foregoing, I have concluded that the Minister is in breach of both of his obligations under the Regulations and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, in particular Article 1 thereof. I will therefore grant the Applicant the following declarations: (i) A Declaration that the Minister’s failure to provide to the applicant the “material reception conditions” pursuant to the European Union (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 is unlawful; (ii) A Declaration that the failure by the Minister to provide to the applicant the “material reception conditions” pursuant to European Union (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 is in breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
