Slovenia, Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber), Abboudnam, C‑58/23, 27 September 2023

Facts:

The applicant was notified on 23 December 2022 that his international protection application was rejected as manifestly unfounded by the Slovenian Ministry of the Interior. Under Slovenian law, the period for lodging an appeal against a decision taken in an accelerated procedure is reduced from 15 days to 3 days from the day of notification of the decision. Since the period spanned over the weekend and a public holiday, the deadline expired on the very next working day, December 27, 2022, effectively leaving the applicant with only one working day to prepare his appeal.

During that brief period, no interpreter was made available to the applicant, who only speaks Arabic and he only communicated with his lawyer via online translation tools. The lawyer’s request to access Y.N.'s case file did not receive a reply by the Ministry of the Interior.

Y.N. lodged an appeal to the Administrative Court of Slovenia, arguing that these cumulative circumstances made it impossible to effectively prepare his appeal, thereby violating his right to an effective remedy.

The referring court took the view that the 3 day period prescribed in the accelerated procedure was “disproportionately less favourable” than the period prescribed in the ordinary procedure (15 days) and decided to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the EU on whether such short deadline is compatible with  Article 46(4) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Decision & reasoning:

The Court noted that Article 46(1) and (4) of Directive 2013/32 (the Asylum Procedures Directive – APD) and Article 47 of the Charter require Member States to establish "reasonable time limits" and other necessary rules for applicants to exercise their right to an effective remedy. When Member States set appeal periods, they are strictly obliged to ensure this fundamental right is observed under Article 51(1) of the Charter. [25-27]

Based on the facts and Article 12 (1) (b) and (2) of the Directive, the applicant should have guarantees, when necessary, of services of an interpreter. [29]

Additionally, the combined reading of Article 22 and Recital 23 APD guarantees, at all stages of the procedure, the right to legal assistance and representation. Moreover, the Article 30 of the Directive guarantees access to the files for the legal advisers of those applicants. [30]

The Court reasoned that Article 46(4) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter prohibits national laws from imposing a three-day appeal deadline for "manifestly unfounded" asylum decisions if that timeframe prevents applicants from effectively exercising their rights. [34]

Outcome:

Article 46(4) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that lays down a period of three days, including public holidays and non-working days, for lodging an appeal against a decision rejecting as manifestly unfounded an application for international protection, delivered by accelerated procedure, where that period is such as to constitute a restriction on the effective exercise of the rights guaranteed in Article 12(1)(b) and (2), and Articles 22 and 23 of that directive.

Subsequent proceedings:

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.