The case concerned an Iranian national who applied for asylum in Germany on 23 September 2016. In his asylum interview before the BAMF on 22 November 2016, the applicant claimed to have left Iran on grounds of his homosexuality. He stated that the jointly rented flat with his partner was vandalized and the partner was beaten up and taken away by unknown people after the mother of a friend had discovered the applicant and his partner during sexual intercourse. The applicant also stated that the father of his partner was member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Pasdaran and he feared to be killed by him upon return. The BAMF rejected the application by decision of 4 January 2017. The applicant appealed against the decision before the Regional Administrative Court of Darmstadt on 24 January 2017.

The Administrative Court of Darmstadt ruled that, pursuant to Section 28(1a) of the Asylum Act, a well-founded fear of persecution may also be based on events that occurred after the applicant left his country of origin. With reference to CJEU, Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X, Y, and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel, C-199/12, C-200/12, C-201/12 , 7 November 2013 and CJEU, Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Y and Z, C-71/11 and C-99/11, 5 September 2012, the Administrative Court of Darmstadt further held that a homosexual person could not reasonably be expected to refrain from homosexual activities in order to avoid prosecution. The court noted that the individual homosexual development and the way of living the homosexuality could be very different from one person to another; it depends on the personality as well as on the cultural, social and religious background and the intellectual disposition of the person involved. Gender identity, sexual orientation and sexual life are part of the private life protected by Article 8(1) of the ECHR.

The Administrative Court of Darmstadt referred to country-of-origin information on the situation in Iran and noted that homosexual acts, which were considered a ‘death sin’ in Iran, were officially punishable by flogging and in some cases to death. Homosexuality often resulted in criminal prosecution and verbal, violent or even sexual assaults by police officers, security forces as well as by family members or private individuals.

The Administrative Court of Darmstadt ruled that the applicant had plausibly presented his homosexuality as a post-flight reason during the oral hearing. Since there was a considerable likelihood that the applicant would be persecuted due to his homosexuality if he returned to Iran, the examination of pre-flight reasons was irrelevant. The court overturned the BAMF's decision and granted international protection to the applicant.