The case concerned an Iranian national who applied for asylum in Austria on 7 November 2015. In his asylum procedure, the applicant claimed to fear persecution upon return to due to his conversion to Christianity. By decision of 30 July 2018, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) rejected the asylum application and issued a return decision. The applicant appealed against this decision before the Federal Administrative Court, which rejected the appeal on the grounds that it did not consider the conversion credible and out of inner conviction but for the purpose of obtaining international protection. The applicant lodged an onward appeal against this decision on the grounds that the Federal Administrative Court had wrongly assessed the evidence of the case.

The Supreme Administrative Court referred to existing case law according to which the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution, if it was reasonable to assume that the applicant would engage in religious activities that exposed him or her to a real risk of persecution after returning to the country of origin. The Supreme Administrative Court further stated that the assessment of an alleged conversion of faith depends on the religious conviction of the applicant and had to be assessed on closer evaluation and specific questioning in the individual case. Indicators of a change of religion by conviction could be the knowledge of the religion, the seriousness of the practice or the regular attendance in services and religious activities.

In light of the fact that the applicant visited religious services on a regular basis, helped out in his former parish community and participated in parish life, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the Federal Administrative Court deviated in its judgement from the guidelines of the higher court case law. It further held that in the oral hearing, the Federal Administrative Court repeatedly defined expectations regarding the behavior and knowledge of a (newly) converted believer without explaining how it has developed these principles. According to the Supreme Administrative Court’s considerations, the Federal Administrative Court had failed to consider the very personal and therefore different approaches of different people to their religious beliefs. Based on the above, the Supreme Administrative Court overruled the decision of the Federal Administrative Court on the grounds that it had assessed the evidence in an unjustifiable manner that impaired legal certainty.