Summary of Judicial Review Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment, delivered by Judge Ferriter on 19 February 2026, determines the quantum of Francovich damages for two applicants ("Applicant 1" and "Applicant 2") arising from admitted breaches by the State of obligations under Directive 2013/33/EU and the EU (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 and of Article 1 of the Charter. Both applicants arrived in The State in early 2023 and sought international protection. They qualified for material reception conditions (including accommodation, food, clothing and hygiene facilities) but were not provided accommodation. Applicant 1 slept rough for 71 days and Applicant 2 for 63 days. The State accepted that it had failed to provide the entitlements. Following an earlier judgment, the court referred questions on the availability and scope of a force majeure defence to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The CJEU answered that force majeure (temporary exhaustion of housing capacity due to a sudden influx) is not available as a defence to avoid liability in these circumstances. The State accepted that the Francovich criteria were met and the High Court proceeded to assess compensatory damages.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a defence of "force majeure" (temporary exhaustion of housing capacity due to a significant, sudden and unforeseeable influx of third‑country nationals) is available to a Member State in a Francovich damages claim for breach of Directive 2013/33/EU and implementing Regulations (including whether as part of the second limb of the Brasserie du Pêcheur/Factortame test).
2. If a force majeure defence is available, what are its parameters and proper scope?
3. Whether awards of Francovich damages in these circumstances must contain an additional deterrent or punitive component beyond compensatory damages (i.e. whether damages must be penal or may be purely reparatory).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The Francovich criteria were satisfied and damages should be awarded for the non‑pecuniary harm suffered.
• The State could not invoke a force majeure defence to avoid liability under the Directive/Regulations.
• Damages should adequately compensate and the applicants submitted that a deterrent element was important (relying on dicta in Von Colson and related authorities), although aggravated or punitive damages were not vigorously pursued at hearing.

State's Arguments

• The State contended that the failure to provide accommodation resulted from force majeure circumstances — saturation of available international protection accommodation due to a sudden large influx of persons (including refugees from the war in Ukraine) — and that such circumstances provided a defence to liability (within the second limb of Brasserie du Pêcheur/Factortame or otherwise).
• The State urged that remedies should be limited: declarations might suffice and, if damages were awarded, they should be low or nominal given the limited duration and lack of lasting adverse impact.
• The State submitted that its bona fide efforts to source collective accommodation and other policy considerations (including potential "pull" effects) were relevant to quantum and to resisting aggravated/exemplary awards.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in the following analytical steps, stated concisely and based on the material in the judgment:

1. The CJEU answered the referred questions (Case C-97/24) and held that a force majeure defence based on temporary exhaustion of housing capacity due to a sudden influx is not available to avoid liability for failure, for a number of weeks, to guarantee access to the material reception conditions of Directive 2013/33/EU. That determined the State's force majeure defence in these proceedings.
2. On the CJEU's answers and the State's concession, the court accepted that the Francovich criteria were met (the Directive/Regulations conferred individual rights, the breach was sufficiently serious, and there was a direct causal link between breach and damage).
3. The court considered the nature of Francovich damages as established by EU law and domestic law interaction: damages are compensatory/reparatory, assessed under domestic principles but subject to EU principles of effectiveness and equivalence (Francovich and Brasserie/Factortame). The court concluded that there is ordinarily no role for an additional separate deterrent/punitive component beyond compensatory damages that properly redress the loss actually suffered.
4. To assess non‑pecuniary quantum the court adopted the domestic framework applied to constitutional breaches (Simpson), emphasising restitutionary aim, an equitable assessment of seriousness and individualized effects, and that punitive damages are exceptional.
5. The court examined whether aggravated or exemplary damages were justified. Having regard to the State's early admissions, cooperation in choosing test cases, and bona fide efforts to address the accommodation crisis, the court found no basis for aggravated or punitive awards on these facts.
6. The court rejected the State's submission that a mere declaration or nominal damages would suffice, citing domestic authorities (Simpson, GE) that significant breaches over a sustained period with real effects warrant compensatory damages beyond nominal sums.
7. The court reviewed Irish and Strasbourg authorities for comparative context but emphasised that awards are fact‑sensitive; Strasbourg awards were informative but not binding. The court identified relevant factors for compensatory assessment and distinguished factors irrelevant to compensation (e.g., bona fide policy efforts, pull‑factor concerns) from the central focus: the gravity of the breach and its effect on the individual claimant.
8. Applying these principles to the facts of each applicant, the court considered (inter alia) length of homelessness, time of year, vulnerability and health, hunger and hygiene deprivation, fear and exposure to racist abuse (Applicant 2), lack or insufficiency of financial assistance, and any mitigating assistance from charities. The court found Applicant 1's circumstances to be on the more serious end of the range given severe physical injuries, PTSD, suicidal ideation and 71 days sleeping rough; Applicant 2 endured 63 days, racist abuse and significant distress.
9. Weighing these factors equitably and compensatorily, the court fixed awards of €9,500 for Applicant 1 and €6,000 for Applicant 2.

Holding and Implications

The court granted the agreed declarations of unlawfulness and breach (as recorded in the judgment) and awarded compensatory Francovich damages: Applicant 1 – €9,500; Applicant 2 – €6,000.

Implications:

• Direct effect: the two applicants receive the specified compensatory awards and the agreed declaratory relief confirming breaches of the Directive/Regulations and Article 1 of the Charter.
• Legal principle: the court applied settled EU and domestic principles that Francovich damages are compensatory; there is ordinarily no separate punitive/deterrent component beyond proper compensation for loss actually suffered.
• Scope: the judgment is fact‑sensitive and the court did not establish fixed bands for future cases; it emphasised that each case will depend on its facts and evidence (no novel universal quantum rule was laid down).

This summary is prepared solely from the content of the provided judgment and has been anonymised in accordance with the instructions given.