Time for an Atlantic Trade Alliance - US - UK - Ireland U.U.I. Will Ireland have to leave EU now. EU, Preliminary Ruling - Just 5 days after Irish court rules to give us legal protection.
- seantech11twine197
- Aug 7
- 7 min read
The EU is now a Bureaucratic Juggernaut that Crushes the Sovereignty of Nations
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
1 August 2025 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Liability of a Member State in the event of infringement of EU law – Sufficiently serious infringement – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/33/EU – Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection – Significant influx of applicants for temporary or international protection – No access to material reception conditions – Basic needs – Temporary exhaustion of housing capacity )
Countries not taking responsibility for their own people.
Ireland one of the smallest countries on the planet and following this preliminary judgement in the EU, we the Irish people, are now burdened with persecution going on in every country on the planet. We are now legally forced to take in Asylum Seekers and give them everything they need before our own people. If we don't they can sue our state. This is complete madness it has the potential to bankrupt Ireland and all EU states in-fact.
Reading through this section of the law quoted in the judgement you can clearly see it is not a law to protect member states but to bully them.
Recital 11 of Directive 2013/33 is worded as follows:
‘Standards for the reception of applicants that will suffice to ensure them a dignified standard of living and comparable living conditions in all Member States should be laid down.’
4 Article 2 of that directive, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides:
‘For the purposes of this Directive:
…
(g) “material reception conditions”: means the reception conditions that include housing, food and clothing provided in kind, or as financial allowances or in vouchers, or a combination of the three, and a daily expenses allowance;
The whole text gives no consideration to national circumstance such as national homeless, which under the charter of human and civil right should precedes any person coming into a country. As a matter of fact if there is homeless in a country this should have first priority to any asylum seekers. Most of these countries should be protecting their own nationals
Thousands of miles, through several countries
is there anything legal about prioritizing two people who came to Ireland and thousands of miles, through several countries, one from Afghanistan with a population of 42.65 Million people and another person from India with a population of 1.45 Billion people and now they are the problem of our small little country.
According to the parliamentary ruling, we in Ireland, must house, cloth, feed, and look after even their mental healthy and everything else, while we have 16,000 people homeless in our country.
Our small little country is now expected to take on illegal persecution and human rights violations being carried out in other countries globally, some with populations of 1.4 Billion.
How could that be written into any law and be legal? That is a blatant bullying, destruction of our sovereignty and a serious breach of our nations human and civil rights? What does this say about Europe? Bullies.
There are agencies all over the world to deal with countries involved in persecution why should we be burdened with this.
"The International Court of Human Rights is not a single, unified court. Instead, the term refers to a system of international courts and tribunals that address human rights violations. The most prominent is the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), but there are also regional courts like the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. Additionally, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) can hear cases involving human rights when they involve disputes between states".
This relationship is no longer viable it has to end. We call on US and UK to now form an alliance to get us out of this before we will be totally destroyed as a nation.
Immigrant council Investigation
This whole case has to spark an Immigrant Council investigation. This agency seemingly, has an endless supply of money at its disposal, to take legal action against our state. How much money have this agency gone through bringing these cases to court in recent years, will it be made public? Now we must house the world. I don't think so.
Judgment of the Court in Case C-97/24 | Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth
and Others
Right to asylum: A Member State may not plead an unforeseeable influx of applicants for international protection in order to evade its obligation to cover asylum seekers’ basic needs.
A failure to fulfil that obligation may trigger the liability of the Member State concerned
Two asylum seekers – an Afghan national and an Indian national – were forced to live for a number of weeks in
precarious conditions in Ireland after that Member State refused to provide them with the minimum reception
conditions required by EU law.
Although the Irish authorities issued each of them with a single voucher for €25, they
did not allocate them housing, pleading a lack of available accommodation in dedicated reception centres,
notwithstanding the availability of individual temporary housing in Ireland. Without having such accommodation,
the two asylum seekers were not eligible for the daily expenses allowance provided for by Irish law. They therefore
slept on the streets or, occasionally, in precarious accommodation.
They have indicated that they went short of
food, were not in a position to maintain their personal hygiene and were placed in a situation involving distress in
view of their respective living conditions and the instances of violence faced by each of them. They have brought
proceedings before the High Court (Ireland) in order to obtain compensation for the damage which they claim to
have suffered as a result.
The Irish authorities acknowledge that there has been an infringement of EU law but plead a situation of force
majeure, which they claim consists of the temporary exhaustion of the housing capacity normally available in the
territory of Ireland for applicants for international protection, owing to a mass influx of third-country nationals
following the invasion of Ukraine. By contrast, those authorities do not claim to have been objectively prevented
from providing material reception conditions covering the basic needs of those applicants.
The High Court has put questions to the Court of Justice regarding the possibility of ruling out the liability of the State in such circumstances,despite the obligations derived from the Reception Conditions Directive 1 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
the European Union In its judgment, the Court recalls that the Member States are required, under the directive, to guarantee applicants for international protection material reception conditions which ensure an adequate standard of living, whether
through housing, financial aid, vouchers, or a combination of the three.
Those conditions must cover basic needs,
including appropriate accommodation, and safeguard the physical and mental health of the persons concerned.
Thus, a Member State which fails to provide an applicant who does not have sufficient means with those
material conditions, even temporarily, is manifestly and gravely exceeding its discretion with regard to the
application of the directive. Such a failure is therefore capable of constituting a sufficiently serious
infringement of EU law, triggering the liability of the Member State concerned.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu
Stay Connected!
Although EU law establishes a strictly delineated derogation system enabling the modalities for reception to be
adjusted in the event of temporary exhaustion of the housing capacity normally available for applicants for
international protection, the application of that system requires that the situation be exceptional, duly justified, and
limited in time. That system applies, inter alia, when a mass, unforeseeable influx of third-country nationals entails
temporary saturation of reception capacity. However, even in this scenario, the directive provides that the
Member States must in any event cover the basic needs of the persons concerned, in accordance with the
obligation to respect human dignity enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In those circumstances, the Court considers that it cannot be accepted that a Member State may plead the
event which triggers the derogation system, that is to say, the temporary exhaustion of the housing capacity
normally available for applicants for international protection, in order to evade its obligation to cover the basic
needs of the persons concerned, including where that exhaustion is the result of a significant and sudden influx of
third-country nationals seeking temporary or international protection. Similarly, pleading the occurrence of such an
event does not enable it to be established that a failure to fulfil the obligations laid down by the directive is not
sufficiently serious to be capable of giving rise to a right to compensation.
An interpretation to the contrary would
deprive that system of its practical effect and would compromise the effective judicial protection of applicants.
Nor is there any element permitting the conclusion, in this instance, that Ireland was objectively prevented from
fulfilling its obligations – either by providing applicants with housing outside the system normally provided for
accommodating them, as the case may be by taking advantage of the derogation system provided for by the
directive, or by granting them financial allowances or vouchers.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of EU law or the
validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or
tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, the abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Press contact: Jacques René Zammit ✆ (+352) 4303 3355.
Images of the delivery of the judgment are available on ‘Europe by Satellite’ ✆ (+32) 2 2964
Comments