The case concerned an applicant, Y.N. a Moroccan national, whose asylum application was rejected as manifestly unfounded in an accelerated procedure.  Y.N. lodged an appeal before Administrative Court and argued that since that decision had been notified to him on 23 December 2022, the day before a weekend containing a public holiday, the actual period for bringing an appeal had been reduced to one working day. Also, the applicant complained that although he speaks only Arabic, no interpreter was available to him and, therefore, he was not able to communicate effectively with his representative, since he communicated with via sms and with the help of an electronic translation tool. The applicant claimed that he was unable to prepare his appeal effectively, which constituted an infringement of his right to an effective remedy.

The Administrative Court stayed the proceedings and referred the following question for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must Article 46(4) of [Directive 2013/32], 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?’

The CJEU ruled that: 'Article 46(4) of the recast APD, read in the light of Article 47 of the EU Charter, 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.'