According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network:

"From the judgment of the CJEU in the case of C-280/21 (P.I.) it follows that the broad interpretation of the term "political belief" as a reason for persecution within the meaning of Article 10(1)(e) of Directive 2011/95 means that the competent authorities of the Member States must, when determining the existence of such beliefs and the causal link between them and acts of persecution, "take into account the general framework of the applicant's country of origin for refugee status, especially its political, legal, judicial, historical and socio-cultural component." In the case of an applicant for international protection from Afghanistan, this is not possible without very precise, non-selective and objective consideration of relevant information about the situation in country of origin. The circumstance that the applicant's wife was employed in the army is a legally relevant circumstance for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution of the applicant, because he could be more easily discovered by the Taliban. The court notes that the applicant has succeeded in justifying, as far as it is practically possible, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he would be exposed to a real danger of persecution or that the threat of persecution is serious. According to the established standard, the applicant does not have to prove that it is more likely than not that he will be prosecuted or that the subjects of protection will be unable or unwilling to protect him. Since he fulfilled this burden of proof, it was up to the Ministry, who is the competent authority to decide on the application, to dispel any doubt about the alleged persecution, but the Ministry failed to do so."