Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:748
Date: 2023-09-27
Language of the case: Slovenian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Asylum policy;Area of freedom, security and justice;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights;Border checks
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Slovenia

Translation  C-58/23 – 1 
Case C-58/23  
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
6 February 2023 
Referring court:  
Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
31 January 2023 
Applicant:  
Y.N. 
Defendant:  
Republic of Slovenia 
      
[…] 
REQUEST 
FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
WITH 
REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED PROCEDURE 
The Upravno sodišče [Administrative Court, Slovenia] is seised of an 
administrative dispute between the applicant, Y. N., a national of the Kingdom of 
Morocco, represented by a refugee adviser […], and the defendant, the 
REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA, represented by the Ministry of the Interior, 
Ljubljana, concerning international protection. 
The Upravno sodišče [Administrative Court] […] has stayed proceedings and 
decided to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European 
Union (Court of Justice), pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union (TFEU). 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 31. 1. 2023 – CASE C-58/23  
 
2  
Contested decision, factual and legal context of the case in the main 
proceedings 
1 An action has been brought before the Upravno sodišče [Administrative Court] in 
connection with an administrative dispute concerning a decision of the Ministry of 
the Interior […] of 15 December 2022. The applicant is seeking annulment of the 
decision by which the defendant, under the fifth indent of Article 49(1) of the 
Zakon o mednarodni zaščiti (Law on international protection) (‘the ZMZ-1’), read 
in conjunction with the first, second and fourth indents of Article 52 thereof, 
rejected as manifestly unfounded the application for international protection 
submitted by the applicant (point 1 of the operative part). The decision gave the 
applicant a period of voluntary departure of ten days, starting from the date on 
which point 1 of the operative part became enforceable, to leave the territory of 
the Republic of Slovenia and the Member States of the European Union, and also 
the Contracting States to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement 
of 14 June 1985 (point 2 of the operative part). If the applicant fails to comply 
with that requirement within the period referred to in point 2 of the operative part, 
the decision provides that he is to be subject to removal from that territory (point 3 
of the operative part). The defendant imposed on the applicant a one-year ban on 
entry to the territory of the Republic of Slovenia and also the Member States of 
the European Union and the Contracting States to the Convention, which will not 
be enforced if he leaves that territory within the period for voluntary departure 
provided for in point 2 of the operative part (point 4 of the operative part). 
2 In the grounds for the contested decision, the defendant considers that the 
applicant bases his application solely on the poor living conditions in his country 
of origin, family difficulties and repression under the Moroccan system. As 
regards the statements concerning the incident with the police officer (who 
allegedly first hit the applicant and then detained him for 24 hours), the defendant 
pointed out that the applicant did not state reasons as to why he considered the 
police officer’s assault to be racist, in so far as he merely stated in general terms 
that Moroccan law fails to protect people against the police, who can act without 
restriction or consequences; such an explanation, however, does not, in the 
defendant’s view, prove the alleged racist treatment. Furthermore, in the view of 
the defendant the abovementioned event clearly had no significant impact on the 
applicant’s decision to leave his country of origin since otherwise he would have 
mentioned it at the time he submitted his application (when he referred only to the 
general repression of the population and his family problems with his father), and 
not only during the personal interview following several questions by the 
administrative officer. The defendant also pointed to the applicant’s statements 
according to which he had argued with the police officer, from which it concluded 
that it was possibly the applicant’s way of communicating that had triggered the 
police officer’s behaviour in relation to the alleged detention. Lastly, in the view 
of the defendant the abovementioned event is not of a sufficiently serious nature 
to constitute a serious infringement of fundamental human rights. 
ABBOUDNAM 
 
3 
3 It is clear from the other grounds stated by the defendant that the instrument of 
international protection is not intended to resolve family conflicts or difficulties 
arising from the poor economic conditions in the applicant’s country of origin. 
The defendant summarised the applicant’s statements concerning his difficult 
living conditions (that is to say that there was no work in Morocco and that poor 
inhabitants are not a priority). It noted that the applicant did not mention that he 
had been prevented from working and that it even appeared from his statements 
that he did not wish to work on a regular basis. The defendant stressed that 
although the applicant stated that the Moroccan Government is generally unfair 
and that it is necessary to wait a long time to obtain identity documents, it is not 
apparent from his allegations that the State authorities prevented him from 
accessing social services or exercising his fundamental rights; at the same time, 
the defendant noted that the waiting time for issuing identity documents referred 
to is common elsewhere in the world and is not necessarily the result of 
discriminatory practices. Since it considered that the applicant had described 
general failings in the system to which all inhabitants of Morocco are subject, the 
defendant found that it was not possible to conclude that the applicant had been 
placed in a clearly less advantageous position by comparison with the other 
inhabitants of that country. In the light of the foregoing, the defendant considered 
that the applicant’s personal situation could not serve as a basis for granting 
international protection and that that also applied to his family difficulties, as that 
was a private matter. 
4 In those circumstances, the defendant considered that the applicant’s statements 
did not constitute a legitimate ground for granting international protection, since 
in his case persecution on grounds of religion, nationality, race, political opinion 
or membership of a particular social group had not been established. The 
defendant therefore considered that the application should be rejected pursuant to 
the first indent of Article 52 of the ZMZ-1. 
5 It is clear from the defendant’s other observations that the applicant is from 
Morocco, which was designated a safe country of origin by the Government of the 
Republic of Slovenia by the Decree of 31 March 2022 establishing the list of safe 
countries of origin. The defendant stated once more in this respect that the 
applicant had failed to establish any grounds of persecution, since it could not 
accept the applicant’s allegations concerning difficulties with the police officer 
and his father, nor those concerning poor living conditions. The defendant 
therefore considered that the applicant had not set out any serious grounds to show 
that Morocco was not a safe country of origin for him and found that the 
application should therefore be rejected under the second indent of Article 52 of 
the ZMZ-1, since the applicant comes from a safe country of origin, as referred to 
in Article 61 of the ZMZ-1. 
6 In the view of the defendant, the applicant’s statements concerning the deliberate 
abandonment of his documents in Turkey in order to avoid being sent back to 
Morocco by the police in Greece, Macedonia or Croatia show that he wished to 
conceal his identity and thus prevent his identification by the competent 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 31. 1. 2023 – CASE C-58/23  
 
4  
authorities of the countries through which he travelled. In the light of the 
foregoing, the defendant considered that the application should also be rejected 
under the fourth indent of Article 52 of the ZMZ-1. 
7 In the context of his appeal, which was lodged in good time, the applicant also 
refers to the allegedly inadequate manner in which the contested decision was 
notified. He states that the notification was made on Friday 23 December 2022, 
that is to say before a public holiday weekend, which means, in his view, that the 
already excessively short period of three days for lodging an appeal was reduced 
to one day and that that did not comply with the right to an effective remedy. 
Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide the applicant’s authorised 
representative with a translator to prepare the application within such a short 
period of time (the applicant speaks only Arabic) and did not reply to his e-mails 
or telephone calls. It was therefore not possible to establish a conversation 
between the applicant and his authorised representative (communication between 
them was by means of text messaging using Google translate), which also 
infringed the applicant’s right to an effective remedy. 
8 By way of additional plea, the applicant further explains that, when he submitted 
his application and during the personal interview, he did not reveal all the 
information concerning the threat to him in Morocco out of fear (that is to say the 
fact that, because of his poverty, he was a member of a criminal gang that sold 
hashish; that because he had considered leaving that gang he had received death 
threats; and that, on account of the influence of the gang, the local police would 
have been unable to protect him). 
9 The defendant disagrees with the applicant’s complaint regarding the provision of 
a translator. It considers that the applicant should have had the assistance of an 
interpreter only at the time of receipt of the application and of the personal 
interview, but that in other justified cases that was at the discretion of the 
competent authority. It then raises the issue of the applicant’s timely presentation 
of allegations by which he additionally explains the circumstances relating to the 
threat to him in Morocco. 
Request for an expedited procedure 
10 The present case concerns the interpretation of 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 (recast) 
as regards the reasonable nature of the time limit laid down in the Zakon o 
mednarodni zaščiti (Law on international protection) (ZMZ-1) for lodging an 
appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection as 
manifestly unfounded. A reference to the grounds raised in the present request for 
a preliminary ruling could constitute a ground of appeal in future administrative 
disputes of this kind: the assessment of the Upravno sodišče [Administrative 
Court] in such appeals will therefore (also) turn on the position of the Court of 
ABBOUDNAM 
 
5 
Justice in the present case. In the light of the particular circumstances set out 
above, which relate to the effectiveness of the appeal, the Upravno sodišče 
[Administrative Court], as the referring court, considers that, in view of the nature 
of the case, it should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The Upravno 
sodišče [Administrative Court] therefore requests that the Court of Justice apply 
the expedited preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 105 of its Rules 
of Procedure. 
Relevant legal basis 
11 The right to an effective remedy is laid down in Article 46 of Directive 
2013/32/EU, which requires that the Member States guarantee the right to an 
effective remedy before a court of a tribunal against a decision rejecting an 
application for international protection, including decisions declaring an 
application inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) thereof. Under Article 46(4) of 
2013/32/EU, the Member States are required to provide for reasonable time limits 
for applicants for international protection to exercise their right to an effective 
remedy, it being made clear that the time limits laid down are not to render such 
exercise impossible or excessively difficult. Account should also be taken of 
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the 
Charter’), under which everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU 
law are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in 
compliance with the conditions laid down in that article. 
12 Under Article 70(1) of the ZMZ-1, an appeal against a decision of the competent 
authority may be lodged with the Upravno sodišče [Administrative Court] within 
15 days of notification (first sentence of Article 70(1) of the ZMZ-1), and against 
a decision given in an accelerated procedure within three days of notification 
(second sentence of Article 70(1) of the ZMZ-1). If the time limit is set in days, it 
begins to run not from the day of notification or communication or from the day 
of the event from which the time limit is to be calculated, but from the first day 
thereafter (Article 111(2) of the Zakon o pravdnem postopku (Code of Civil 
Procedure; the ‘ZPP’), read in conjunction with Article 22(1) of the Zakon o 
upravnem sporu (Law on administrative disputes; the ‘ZUS-1’)). If the last day of 
the time limit is a Saturday, Sunday, public holiday or other non-working day 
provided for in the Law on public holidays, the time limit expires at the end of the 
first working day thereafter (Article 111(4) of the ZPP, read in conjunction with 
Article 22(1) of the ZUS-1). Under the third indent of Article 1(1) of the Zakon o 
praznikih in dela prostih dnevih v Republiki Sloveniji (Law on public holidays 
and non-working days in the Republic of Slovenia; the ‘ZPDPD’), the 
26 December, Independence and Unity Day, is a public holiday and non-working 
day (Article 1(2) of the ZPDPD). 
13 Under the fifth indent of Article 49 of the ZMZ-1, in an accelerated procedure the 
competent authority is to reject an application as manifestly unfounded by 
decision if an applicant clearly does not satisfy the conditions for international 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 31. 1. 2023 – CASE C-58/23  
 
6  
protection and a ground referred to in Article 52 of that law exists. An application 
submitted by an applicant who clearly does not satisfy the conditions for 
international protection is to be considered manifestly unfounded. This is 
particularly the case as follows: if an applicant has reported in the proceedings 
only facts which are not relevant for the purpose of examining the right to 
international protection under that law (first indent of Article 52 of the ZMZ-1); 
where an applicant comes from a safe country of origin, as referred to in 
Article 61 of that law (second indent of Article 52 of the ZMZ-1); and where it is 
likely that an applicant has destroyed or abandoned with ill intent an identity or 
travel document that would help to establish his or her identity or nationality, in 
particular where it appears from the circumstances of the case that an applicant 
could obtain identity documents in his or her country of origin (fourth indent of 
Article 52 of the ZMZ-1). A third country is considered a safe country of origin 
where, on the basis of the legal situation, of the application of the law within a 
democratic system and of the general political circumstances, it can be shown that, 
generally and consistently, there is never any persecution, torture or inhuman or 
degrading treatment or punishment, nor any threat by reason of indiscriminate 
violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict (Article 61(1) of 
the ZMZ-1). 
Interpretation of Article 46(4) of Directive 2013/32/EU 
14 The Upravno sodišče [Administrative Court] is aware in this regard of the 
judgment of 9 September 2020, Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux 
apatrides (Rejection of a subsequent application – Time limit for bringing 
proceedings) (C-651/19, EU:C:2020:681), but the legal and factual context of that 
case differs from that in the present case. In that earlier case, the Court of Justice 
considered Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU, in conjunction with Article 47 of 
the Charter, in relation to a subsequent application, where the initial application 
had already been examined exhaustively and definitively rejected by the 
competent authority and the applicant had a right to challenge that rejection 
(paragraph 58). It is also clear from paragraph 6[1] of the abovementioned 
judgment that the Court of Justice took account of the fact that the drafting of such 
an application was not, a priori, of such particular complexity as to require a 
period greater than 10 days, including public holidays and non-working days. In 
contrast to the abovementioned circumstances, the present case does not concern a 
situation where a decision has already been given, which the applicant has had an 
opportunity to appeal. Furthermore, in the present case (at least), where the 
applicant is challenging the defendant’s position regarding satisfaction of the 
conditions for granting international protection (fifth indent of Article 49 of the 
ZMZ-1), the Upravno sodišče [Administrative Court] considers that the appeal 
cannot be regarded as not being, a priori, of particular complexity, Consequently, 
the position of the Court of Justice in the abovementioned case, that Article 46 of 
Directive 2013/32/EU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be 
interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that 
proceedings challenging a decision declaring a subsequent application for 
ABBOUDNAM 
 
7 
international protection to be inadmissible are subject to a limitation period of 
10 days, including public holidays and non-working days, as from the date of 
service of such decision, cannot be directly applied to the present case […] 
(paragraph 67). 
15 Furthermore, the dispute in the present case concerns whether a time limit of only 
three days for lodging an appeal is sufficient to ensure the procedural rights 
guaranteed to applicants by the Member States under Article 12(2) of Directive 
2013/32/EU, including the right to an interpreter. Legal assistance and 
representation in an appeals procedure include, at least, the preparation of the 
required procedural documents and participation in the hearing before a court of 
first instance or tribunal of first instance on behalf of the applicant (Article 20(1) 
of Directive 2013/32/EU), with applicants receiving the services of an interpreter 
for submitting their case to the competent authorities (first sentence of 
Article 12(1)(b) of Directive 2013/32/EU). 
16 Having regard to the foregoing, the Vrhovno sodišče (Supreme Court, Slovenia) 
has already held that authorised representatives cannot protect the interests of 
applicants if communication between the authorised representative and the 
applicant for international protection is rendered impossible or significantly more 
difficult by the lack of a language which they both understand; if the authorised 
representative charged with preparing an appeal in an administrative dispute does 
not have all the necessary information for a reason outside his or her control, the 
applicant’s right to judicial protection and an effective remedy is infringed. In the 
view of the Upravno sodišče [Administrative Court], this means that the applicant 
for international protection must, in order to lodge an appeal in an administrative 
dispute, also where a decision has been issued in an accelerated procedure, be 
provided with the assistance of an interpreter if he or she so requests and if 
communication with an authorised representative would otherwise be impossible. 
17 Furthermore, Article 23 of Directive 2013/32/EU ensures that the applicant’s legal 
adviser enjoys access to information in the applicant’s file upon the basis of which 
a decision is or will be taken. However, it is apparent from the evidence produced 
by the applicant in support of his allegations that the defendant made no response 
to the applicant’s authorised representative, either by e-mail or by telephone, 
during the period between Friday 23 December 20[2]2, the date on which the 
authority to act was conferred, and the last day of the time limit laid down. This 
circumstance in itself renders the abovementioned right meaningless, as can 
happen whenever, in an accelerated procedure, a decision is notified shortly 
before a non-working day. 
18 The Upravno sodišče [Administrative Court] is aware that a shorter time limit may 
be laid down for an appeal against a decision rejecting an application as 
manifestly unfounded (Article 32(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU), having regard to 
the need for accelerated processing (Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU), in 
line with the objective of swift processing of applications for international 
protection, which, according to recital 18 of Directive 2013/32/EU, is in the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 31. 1. 2023 – CASE C-58/23  
 
8  
interests of both Member States and applicants for such protection. However, 
having particular regard to the factual circumstances of the present case (which 
differ from those which gave rise to the judgment in Case C-651/19) — in which 
the contested decision was notified on Friday 23 December 2022, the time limit 
for lodging an appeal having expired, owing to Independence and Unity Day 
(Monday 26 December 2022), on 27 December 2022 — and in view of the 
abovementioned provisions of Directive 2013/32/EU concerning interpretation 
and the right of access to information contained in the applicant’s file, it is clear 
that the three-day period for lodging an appeal against the decisions under the 
accelerated procedure is insufficient in practical terms to enable an effective 
remedy to be prepared and submitted. Therefore, in the view of the Upravno 
sodišče [Administrative Court], that time limit makes it more difficult to exercise 
the rights guaranteed by European Union law and is, moreover, disproportionately 
less favourable than the time limit laid down in the ZMZ-1 for lodging an appeal 
against a decision in ordinary proceedings. 
In the light of the foregoing, the Upravno sodišče [Administrative Court] refers 
the following question for a preliminary ruling: 
19 Must Article 46(4) of Directive 2013/32/EU, read in conjunction with Article 47 
of the Charter, be interpreted as precluding a national procedural rule, such as the 
second sentence of Article 70(1) of the ZMZ-1, which provides, for the lodging of 
an appeal against a decision by which the competent authority rejects an 
application as manifestly unfounded under an accelerated procedure, a time limit 
of three days from the notification of such a decision, including public holidays, 
which may expire at the end of the first working day thereafter? 
Ljubljana, 31 January 2023 
[…]