Supreme Court to hear appeal from Ukrainian couple over exclusion from social welfare

High Court Reporter

A Ukrainian couple granted temporary protection in Ireland have secured a Supreme Court appeal over their exclusion from social welfare payments.

The pair, who cannot be identified due to a court order, have lived in a hotel in Dublin since they arrived in the State and are provided with meals on a full-board basis.

The woman had been receiving a means-tested disability allowance of €208 per week due to her poor health and physical disabilities, while her husband had received a means-tested weekly carer’s allowance of €224.

Legislative changes in 2024 stipulated that displaced people granted temporary protection here “shall be disqualified” from social welfare assistance, other than supplementary welfare allowance, while residing at a designated accommodation centre. This meant the couple lost their disability and care allowances.

They issued High Court proceedings alleging the relevant legislative amendments contravene article 40.1 of the Constitution, which requires all citizens to be held equal before the law. They also claimed the changes amount to a failure by the State to properly transpose an article of an EU directive.

Judge Alexander Owens dismissed their case, finding they failed to establish that the level of State assistance provided to them is insufficient. He ruled that the legal changes were merely disadvantageous to the couple, rather than inherently discriminatory.

Owens held that people under temporary protection would be at comparatively greater advantage than Irish citizens if they were to be eligible for social welfare assistance and full accommodation and board at the expense of the State.

Seeking a Supreme Court appeal of his decision, the couple claimed he erred by not finding they were irrationally or arbitrarily treated.

The State parties – the Minister for Social Protection, the Attorney General and Ireland – opposed the application for appeal, arguing the Oireachtas is allowed to differentiate between classes of people.

A panel of three Supreme Court judges determined the case was of general public importance and should be heard by the court.

The legislative changes “affected many people” and is based on a distinction drawn between temporary protection recipients and international protection candidates, judges Peter Charleton, Iseult O’Malley and Gerard Hogan noted. Whether this distinction is constitutionally valid is a “serious issue”, they said.

A hearing date for the appeal has yet to be set.