DUBLIN, Ireland: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) challenging a lower court ruling that the State did not violate the human right to dignity of international protection applicants by failing to provide them with accommodation.

Last July, the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court decision that had found the State in breach of this right. The High Court had ruled in August 2023 that the government's failure to provide accommodation to single male asylum seekers amounted to a violation of their right to dignity.

In a newly published decision, a three-judge Supreme Court panel said it would grant the IHREC permission to appeal, stating that the application "clearly satisfies" the constitutional test for such a case.

The Court of Appeal had acknowledged that the IHREC had shown, through evidence from 13 applicants, that the men faced extreme material hardship. However, it disagreed that their experiences reflected the broader group of applicants and said the evidence did not prove that their physical or mental health had been seriously damaged or that they were living in conditions incompatible with human dignity.

In seeking permission to appeal, the IHREC argued that the case raises significant public-interest issues, particularly regarding the interpretation of Article 1 of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, which protects human dignity.

The Commission also said a further appeal was justified because of the starkly different conclusions reached by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. It further contended that the Court of Appeal allowed the State's appeal on grounds that the State itself did not specifically raise.

The Supreme Court noted that the State agreed the case raises issues of significant public importance, including questions about its potential liability in situations where it is temporarily unable to provide accommodation to a limited number of asylum seekers due to "unprecedented circumstances."

Both sides accepted that the interpretation of Article 1 of the EU Charter is a matter of wider importance. The State also acknowledged that allowing the appeal would serve the interests of justice, given the possible impact of the ruling on future cases and the differing judgments in the lower courts.

In granting permission for the appeal, the Supreme Court panel said that both parties have identified several issues of general public importance and that it is in the interests of justice for the case to proceed.