S.Y. (A Minor Suing by his Next Friend Aoife Dare) v The Minister for Children and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Charles Meenan |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] IEHC 187 |
| Docket Number | [2023 175 JR] |
| Court | High Court |
In the Matter of Directive 2013/33/EU and The EU (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018
and
and
[2023] IEHC 187
[2023 175 JR]
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Reception conditions – Declaratory relief – Mootness – Applicant seeking a declaration that the first respondent’s failure to provide to the applicant the material reception conditions pursuant to the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 was unlawful – Whether the application was moot
Facts: The applicant, an Afghan national, applied for international protection in the State. It was common case that the applicant was entitled to “material reception conditions” under the provisions of the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 230 of 2018) (the Regulations) and that what was provided by the first respondent, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (the Minister), fell far short of what was required, in particular, lack of accommodation/shelter, the provision of food and basic conditions for hygiene. On 24 February 2023, the applicant was granted leave to seek a number of reliefs by way of judicial review. Since the proceedings were initiated, accommodation had been provided to the applicant; the provision of accommodation ought also to have covered the requirement for food and basic hygiene conditions. Despite this, the applicant sought certain declarations. As there had been numerous other similar applications the High Court decided to hear the application as a “lead case” to identify the legal issues and entitlements. The court was informed that, unlike the applicant, there had been no offers of accommodation to other applicants even after a lapse of several weeks. Given that the applicant had been accommodated, two issues remained to be considered: (i) whether the application was “moot”; and (ii) the applicant’s entitlement, if any, to the declarations he sought.
Held by Meenan J that, referring to the discretion identified by McKechnie J in Lofinmakin v Minister for Justice [2013] 4 I.R. 272, though the issue of accommodation had been resolved, the issue and the other “material reception conditions” remained live in many other cases. Meenan J held that it was in the interests of the parties that the issues raised by the applicant were resolved. Even if the instant case was not a “lead case”, Meenan J was of the view that the declarations sought by the applicant would pass the threshold test as identified by Baker J in M.C. v The Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital [2021] 2 I.R. 166. Meenan J was satisfied that the application was not moot. Meenan J held that it was clear from two decisions of the ECJ, C-233/80 Haqbin and Case C-79/30 Saciri, on the Reception Conditions Directive (Directive 2013/33/EU) and its predecessor that even if accommodation facilities are overloaded alternative steps should be taken by the Minister which may include giving “financial allowances” or referring persons, such as the applicant, to “bodies within the general public assistance system” who will provide what the Minister does not. Meenan J held that even though the Minister was making efforts to secure accommodation this did not absolve him of his obligations under the Regulations. Meenan J noted that 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 of the European Union (the Charter) which states “human dignity is inviable it must be respected and protected”.
Meenan J held that the Minister was in breach of both of his obligations under the Regulations and the Charter, in particular Article 1 thereof. Meenan J granted 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 Regulations was unlawful; (ii) a declaration that the failure by the Minister to provide to the applicant the “material reception conditions” pursuant to the Regulations was in breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of the Charter.
Application granted.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Charles Meenan delivered on the 21 st of April 2023
. The application before the court is but one of many. Each of the applications concern single males of a young age who have applied for international protection in the State. It is common case that the applicant in these proceedings and other similar proceedings are entitled to “material reception conditions” under the provisions of the “ European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations, 2018 ( S.I. 230 of 2018) (“the Regulations”). It is also common case that what was provided by the first named respondent (the Minister) fell far short of what is required, in particular, lack of accommodation/shelter, the provision of food and basic conditions for hygiene.
. In the course of this judgment I will identify the legal obligations which the Minister owes both to this applicant and others under domestic law and EU law.
. Since these proceedings were initiated, accommodation has been provided to the applicant. The provision of accommodation ought also to cover the requirement for food and basic hygiene conditions. Despite this, the applicant seeks certain declarations.
. As there have been numerous other similar applications the court decided to hear this application as a “lead case” to identify the legal issues and entitlements. It should also be noted that the court was informed that, unlike the applicant, there have been no offers of accommodation to other applicants even after a lapse of several weeks.
. The applicant is an Afghan national, and he states his date of birth as being 18 January 2006. In September 2022, the applicant's father was killed by the Taliban. His eldest brother subsequently arranged for him to leave Afghanistan to seek asylum. The applicant left Afghanistan in or around 6 November 2022 with the assistance of a “people smuggler”. Having travelled to Iran, Turkey, Bulgaria, Italy, France and England the applicant arrived in the State on 7 February 2023 and made an application for international protection the following day, 8 February 2023. He did not have documents to prove his age.
. The applicant was interviewed by social workers on behalf of the International Protection Office (“IPO”). They told the applicant that they believed he was an adult and not a minor. The applicant was informed that there was no accommodation available and was provided with a €28 (possibly €25) voucher for Dunnes Stores to buy bedding. Other than €15 the applicant had no other financial means. The applicant was given the address of the Capuchin Day Centre, a private charity.
. Between 7 February and 28 February, the applicant had to sleep rough in places such as benches, parks, and train stations. The applicant did not have any food to eat and had to resort to begging. On occasion he was provided with food by other Afghani people whom he met on the streets.
. Whilst he was sleeping rough, the applicant felt constantly scared and in danger. In his grounding affidavit he states that on one occasion he was approached by a drunk man who demanded money from him. The drunk man threatened the applicant that he had a knife and forced the applicant to give him €5.
. On the hygiene conditions endured by the applicant he stated in his affidavit:
“When I attended the Irish Refugee Council, I was provided with a list of charities in Dublin which provide meals and access to toilet facilities. I did not have any bath or shower for approximately 22 to 23 days I did not change my clothes in those 22 to 23 days; I smelled bad. Sometimes, I used the toilets at the Mosque near the Spire, sometimes in shopping malls, but there were times when I was forced to relieve myself behind some offices in town. I felt ashamed, humiliated and degraded. I felt desperate and hopeless that things would get better for me. If not for the help from Afghani people and charities, I don't know how I would have survived.”
. Although the applicant appears to be a minor he was initially deemed an adult by the IPO and the Child and Family Agency (“CFA”) (the third named respondent). Subsequently the applicant obtained documentation from Afghanistan which indicated that the applicant is a minor. The IPO has accepted this documentation, but the matter remains with the CFA and an “age assessment” decision on review is awaited.
. On 24 February 2023, the applicant was granted leave (O'Regan J.) to seek a number of reliefs by way of judicial review. These reliefs included:
-
1. An order of mandamus requiring the first named respondent to perform the public duty imposed on him by Regulation 4 of the Regulations and the Reception Conditions Directive by providing the applicant with “material reception conditions” to include accommodation/housing without further delay in accordance with law.
-
2. A Declaration that the First Named Respondent's failure to perform the public duty imposed on him by Regulation 4 of the EU (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 and the Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU, to provide the Applicant with ‘material reception conditions’ including accommodation/housing since he indicated his intention to apply for international protection in the State pursuant to section 13 of the International Protection Act 2015 is and has been unlawful.
-
3. A Declaration that in failing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.A. v The Minister for Children and Others; R.J. v The Minister for Children and Others
...they were provided with accommodation. One of those cases was S.Y. v Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth [2023] IEHC 187 (“ S.Y.”). In that case, Meenan J. held that the State was in breach of its obligations under the Regulations and Article 1 of the Charter ......