The applicant, Iranian national, claimed asylum in the Netherland on basis of apostasy, arguing that he turned away Islam, he become atheist and would face persecution upon return. The applicant also claimed that he organised strikes in Iran and while he was already in the Netherlands, there was a raid in Iran on his home. Both the State Secretary and the Court of the Hague rejected the application, considering that the statements of the applicant on atheism, on the raid on his home and on organising strikes are not credible.

The Council of State held that there are two main issues at stake, precisely determining how to assess credibility of atheism and the risk of apostates are subject to on return to Iran. The Council of State mentioned that persecution due to atheism was falling under the Refugee Convention, but there were different views on whether there is a difference between apostasy and atheism as grounds for asylum. The Council of State considered that its is necessary to distinguish in the investigation and in the assessment of credibility and of the applicant’s beliefs. Based on the lower courts’ findings, the Council of State held that the State Secretary did not clearly mention the method used to assess the credibility and the atheism allegations, leading to a negative decision insufficiently and unproperly reasoned.

With regard the risk for apostates upon return in Iran, the Council of State stated that the determining authority had not motivated clearly, carefully and properly on reasons for which the applicant would not face a risk of persecution or a serious harm. The Council of State noted that apostasy is punishable in Iran and there was clear that apostates and atheists who actively promote their apostasy or atheism, for example through statements on social media, run the risk of generating the negative interest of the Iranian authorities. However, the State Secretary considered that apostates and atheists who do not actively express their beliefs, but who, for example, have stopped practicing, generally do not run the risk of persecution or inhumane treatment upon return.

The Council of State further held that the State Secretary had not adequately reasoned on the situation when a third country national would not be at risk of persecution or inhuman treatment on basis of no longer practising and complying with religious rules. Since the State Secretary found it credible that the applicant is apostasy, a proper investigation should have been conducted on the situation of apostates and atheists in Iran.

The appeal was allowed and the case was sent back for re-examination.