The applicant, a third-country national, applied for international protection in Czechia, claiming a fear of persecution on religious grounds because of his conversion from Islam to Christianity. He stated that his family in the country of origin had threatened him in connection with having a child outside marriage and changing his surname. He also claimed to fear for his life and health because a person involved in criminal activity, whom he had helped to expose to the authorities in Czechia, now lives in the country of origin. By a decision of 16 October 2025, the Ministry of the Interior (the ministry) refused to grant refugee status and found the applicant excluded from subsidiary protection under Section 15a of the Asylum Act, because he had committed a serious crime. The applicant challenged the ministry's decision before the Regional Court in Brno.

By judgment of 13 March 2026, the Regional Court in Brno dismissed the applicant's challenge and upheld the ministry's decision. Relying on EUAA country of origin information (COI), the court noted that the COI describes general risks for religious converts and apostates in the country of origin, especially where a person's profile becomes visible or conversion is publicly declared. Applying the “reasonable likelihood” standard for prospective risk assessment, the court found that, in the applicant's individual circumstances, persecution was not reasonably likely. The court held that the only identified threat was a single, indirect threat from 2011, with no subsequent contact or indications of continued pursuit, and noted that the applicant's last place of residence was in a Kurdish area, whereas the COI suggested higher risks in Arab areas. In addition – referring to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court, which established that, in line with Article 10(1)(b) of the recast Qualification Directive, religious conversion must be assessed in terms of the applicant's inner conviction and the related identity and way of life (4 Azs 71/2015-58), the Regional Court in Brno assessed the applicant's attachment to Christianity as shallow, without stable religious practice or public manifestation.

The court further noted that, because the applicant was excluded from subsidiary protection under Section 15a of the Asylum Act (serious crime), it was not pertinent to assess whether his return would breach the non-refoulement principle due to serious harm. It indicated that the permissibility of return in light of the non-refoulement principle should be assessed in a separate procedure under the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals.

In conclusion, the Regional Court in Brno dismissed the applicant's challenge and upheld the ministry's decision of 16 October 2025 refusing to grant international protection.