S.Y. (A minor suing by his next friend Aoife Dare) v The Minister for Children & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, a minor Afghan national, applied for international protection in the State after fleeing Afghanistan due to familial threats and violence. Upon arrival in early February 2023, the applicant was initially deemed an adult by the International Protection Office (IPO) and the Child and Family Agency (CFA), resulting in no immediate accommodation being provided. The applicant endured rough sleeping, lack of food, and inadequate hygiene conditions for several weeks. Subsequent documentation confirmed his minor status, and accommodation was eventually provided on 28 February 2023. The applicant initiated judicial review proceedings seeking declarations regarding the failure of the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (the Minister) to provide the legally mandated "material reception conditions" under the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 and Directive 2013/33/EU. The case was heard as a lead case to address systemic issues faced by similar applicants.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the application for judicial review is moot given that accommodation was eventually provided to the applicant.
2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the declarations sought concerning the Minister’s failure to provide "material reception conditions" and breaches of rights under EU law including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Minister failed to provide the applicant with accommodation, food, and basic hygiene facilities as required by the Regulations and the Reception Conditions Directive.
• The failure amounted to a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 1 (human dignity), Article 3 (right to integrity of the person), Article 4 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), and Article 7 (respect for private and family life) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
• Despite eventual accommodation, the applicant sought declarations to address the unlawful failure and to clarify legal entitlements for himself and others in similar circumstances.

Minister's Arguments

• The Minister admitted the failure to provide material reception conditions prior to 28 February 2023 due to a chronic shortage of accommodation exacerbated by increased international protection applicants and arrivals fleeing the war in Ukraine.
• Efforts were ongoing to procure accommodation, including utilizing overflow facilities and exploring alternative premises.
• In the interim, applicants were provided with food vouchers and directed to charitable organizations for support.
• The Minister contended that the declarations sought were unnecessary given the accommodation was eventually provided and efforts were being made to comply with obligations.
• The Minister argued that the Directive does not have direct effect and that the Regulations do not explicitly reference Article 35 of the Directive concerning the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
• Regarding the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Minister submitted that the applicant did not meet the threshold for claims under Article 3, and that no official indifference existed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the Minister’s admitted failure to provide the applicant with material reception conditions, including accommodation, food, and hygiene facilities, as mandated by the EU Reception Conditions Directive and its transposition into Irish law. The shortage of accommodation was attributed to increased numbers of international protection applicants and arrivals fleeing the war in Ukraine. Despite these challenges, the Minister’s provision of a single food voucher and referral to charities was deemed insufficient and unacceptable as a substitute for the statutory obligations.

The court considered the question of mootness, referencing established Supreme Court authorities that allow discretion to hear cases that remain of public importance and where similar issues persist for other applicants. It found that the case was not moot because it was heard as a lead case to address systemic failures affecting many applicants.

In assessing the entitlement to declarations, the court applied principles from relevant precedent emphasizing that declarations are appropriate when there is a good reason, a substantial issue, sufficient interest, and a proper contradictor. The court found these criteria met due to the serious impact on the applicant’s dignity and rights.

The court interpreted the Regulations in light of the Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, holding that the Minister’s obligations include ensuring a dignified standard of living under Article 1 of the Charter. It rejected the Minister’s argument that the Directive lacks direct effect, affirming that the Regulations must be read consistently with the Directive and the Charter.

The court also considered relevant ECHR jurisprudence, particularly regarding inhuman and degrading treatment, but noted the declarations sought were limited to the Regulations and Charter rather than specific Convention articles.

Holding and Implications

The court held as follows:

(i) The Minister’s failure to provide the applicant with material reception conditions pursuant to the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 was unlawful.

(ii) This failure constituted a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Implications: The court’s decision confirms the legal obligation of the Minister to provide material reception conditions, including accommodation, food, and hygiene, to international protection applicants without undue delay. Although the applicant has now been accommodated, the judgment serves as a precedent clarifying the Minister’s duties and may guide the resolution of similar cases. No new legal principles were established beyond the application of existing EU law and Charter rights to the facts presented.